Gandhi in The Handmaid’s Tale
Aisha Sarwari October 4, 2005
#1145 Posted by Edge on October 10, 2005 3:17:31 pm
Dear Behram...difference is , General Sam was an Indian parsi. You remain an effete neutred parsi from pakiland.
And in Kashmir , we only kill Islamic terrorists.No regrets.
And in Kashmir , we only kill Islamic terrorists.No regrets.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#1144 Posted by Behram1 on October 10, 2005 3:06:08 pm
Re: # 1137
Dear Edge,
[Indian Army easily broke Jinnah`s dreamland into 2 equal parts , taking as POWs 100,000 Pakistani soldiers.] under the able leadership of Field Marshall Sam Maneckshaw, a Parsi. Was he neutered?
Time to grow up, is it not? Stop the killings of innocent Kashmiris.
Just the same,
Respectfully submitted,
Dear Edge,
[Indian Army easily broke Jinnah`s dreamland into 2 equal parts , taking as POWs 100,000 Pakistani soldiers.] under the able leadership of Field Marshall Sam Maneckshaw, a Parsi. Was he neutered?
Time to grow up, is it not? Stop the killings of innocent Kashmiris.
Just the same,
Respectfully submitted,
#1143 Posted by Behram1 on October 10, 2005 3:01:40 pm
Re: # 1142
Dear kaalchakra:
Thank you for your kind words. There is already so much hate around this world.
Respectfully submitted,
Behram B. Atashband
Dear kaalchakra:
Thank you for your kind words. There is already so much hate around this world.
Respectfully submitted,
Behram B. Atashband
#1142 Posted by KaalChakra on October 10, 2005 2:54:07 pm
Dear Behram1
And all this while I thought you were determined to destroy Gandhi`s reputation because you felt hurt when Indians didn`t respect Mr. Jinnah. I guess I misread you!
:)
And all this while I thought you were determined to destroy Gandhi`s reputation because you felt hurt when Indians didn`t respect Mr. Jinnah. I guess I misread you!
:)
#1141 Posted by Edge on October 10, 2005 2:53:39 pm
Jinnah with his lover ..(do notice the coy post-coital grin on the lover`s face)..
#1140 Posted by Edge on October 10, 2005 2:48:32 pm
Behram....so you are a neutred effete parsi from Pakistan in love with the qaid and the effed up country. No big deal.
#1139 Posted by Behram1 on October 10, 2005 2:39:05 pm
Re: # 1131
Dear kaalchakra:
Thank you for such a long worded post. Please rest assured, as I have stated in my previous posts, I have never found any Pakistani who starts a discussion about India`s partition. It has always been the Indians.
Whether it is Pakistani securalists or not is a question not for outsiders to contemplate. I admit, Pakistan, has a lot of problems internally. But we certainly do not need some Indian agent in the US educating us. I am well aware of the donations being asked around the US in Indian temple for the betterment of political parties in India. May be I am not a good writer, but I am well read.
You are absolutely right that people`s mind cannot be changed easily, and no body is suggesting that. All we were arguing about is that Gandhi had problems with women. And now suddenly I have talk about my overall political philosophy regarding India/Pakistan. I am old enough to understand when to keep quiet.
Some Gandhi lovers are trying to be benevolent in guidance, when none is needed. When I see an Indian, I see hatred written all over his face. He is dumbfounded that there are Parsis in Pakistan. And then, a Pakistan loving Parsi.
It appears by your writing skills that you are in the academic world. If correct, you are too theoretical.
[But I am fearful of the ultimate effectiveness of this new anti-Gandhism] There is no new wave of anti-Gandhism. You might consider a new wave of pro-nationalism, but never a new of anti-Gandhism. Frankly, Gandhi or for that matter most Indians, have always been very insignificant in my life.
Thank you for [I fully and enthusiastically share and for what it`s worth, endorse, the goal of Pakistani secularists (in fact, or in name, is immaterial)]. Then, should we expect a behavior modifications in your subsequent postings?
[More than most Indians, I realize that Jinnah deserves a fairer deal in terms of his reputation in India and abroad.] Jinnah, has always been a shining star abroad. He is the only freedom fighter who never went to jail. That speaks volumes on his political suaveness. Not to mention his professional attire, mannerism, and no nonsense behavior.
Your concern [this new anti-Gandhism] is elusive. There is no new anything regarding Gandhi, or Indian leaders. The only newness is for Advani to speak highly of Jinnah.
You are correct in asserting [Love and respect are very difficult sentiments to generate among us. Hatred and contempt come to us most naturally, almost uninvited.] As for me, I hate nobody. I will however reserve the right to defend my integrity.
Words are not needed, please continue showing by action [No one has to agree, but I will try to explain the best I can].
[This honor we must endow on everyone, even our dearest elders.] Your argument is similar to Anil`s in one of his earlier post, which I rejected. Older generation must be and will be held responsible for everything. And that is a fact.
[But there is a huge danger in moving beyond the defense of one`s own icon, into the territory of destroying someone else`s.] [Every child may think that his or her parents are fools, but few will sit by listening to other people launch similar ad-hominem attacks on their parents. Particularly, if their own overall evaluation has been positive. Foolishness and smarts are not the only dimensions on which we evaluate our elders.]
Practice what you preach. When you live in a glass house don`t throw stones at other house. Gandhi lovers have no idea of what is happening in the international political arena, and are just realizing the outcome of their hate filled agenda.
[Gandhi was not a Mahatma is a prescription for much trouble.] for whom?
Is it some sort of a hidden threat to knowledge, to truthfulness?
[It will re-create the unfortunate, unwise, and probably unreal binaries that many Indians and Pakistanis have been working to erase. The response of Indians on this board, I respectully submit, offers a telling insight. Even young Gujju (I was very pleasantly surprised) put aside his pure capitalism to make his stand clear.]
[Hopefully, you will see why Gandhi`s and Prophet Muhammad`s case is not identical.] I have always known that. You are repeating my vocabulary to me. Wah reh wah. Ulti ganga behe rahi hai kiya..... It is your Indian Gandhi lovers who must understand that.
I am trying to understand as I go along with your post
[To re-iterate my major concerns, a lot of work has been recently done (on Chowk and elsewhere) toward developing better Indo-Pak mutual understanding.] Agreed.
[That enterprize has required a lot of people to grow in many directions.] Okay.
[More than anything else, it has required us to grow spiritually. People have had to open their hearts to the desirability of going the extra mile to see things from OTHERS` point of view. So they could put themselves in the shoes of OTHER people. So they could convince themselves (never an easy job) that one can give others the same benefit of doubt that we so give to ourselves and to our own.] okay.
[That spiritual growth, along with the new understanding it has wrought, has been a collective victory for everyone.]
[I fear that in our new carelessness, all that mutual work, common achievements, will go down the drain. I am apprehensive about old pettinesses, and closed-heartedness coming back.] Then, please don`t be a part of this carelessness.
[It took a lot of genuine effort to recognize that Mr. Jinnah may not be entirely or solely at fault.] Great.
[It will take very little spiritual work to conclude that after all all those old prejudices against him were right on target, that he was indeed the evil incarnate many people have argued he was.] So?
[The reputation Mr. Jinnah enjoys in India is unfair] and that is what I have been arguing.
[but Indian bigotry or failure to understand history is not the only reason]. Then, why do you contribute to it?
[In fact, I humbly submit, those are not by any means the main reasons.] Well, Gandhi is the subject of this post and not Jinnah. Nevertheless, keep up your theoretical post.
[To get a perspective on the difficulties involved, consider the views Pakistanis themselves hold of him.] What has this got to do with Gandhi not liking women?
[I suspect that Jinnah is viewed no more fairly and accurately in Pakistan - the country he himself created - than in India - a country that has fewer reasons to think highly or accurately of him.] And that is all the more reason to see what Yasser`s effort has been all along.
[Jinnah was a great man.] Yes, agreed. Thank you.
[But that greatness can be established on a firm footing only by generating a particular mindset, first and foremost, within Pakistani itself]. Yes, agreed. We need to clear the outside rubbish first and then work inside or work form inside to outside. Pakistanis are quite capable of doing that. Thank you very much.
[It cannot be established by using a legalistic play of arguments to question Gandhi`s (or anyone else`s) greatness]. Then, please practice what you preach on the greatness of your own icon. And don`t bring Jinnah, as soon as any topic on Indian intellectual decay shows up.
[As always, Pakistani secularists have my best wishes.] Thank you. Then, please help us in this journey. Would you?
Thank you for pontificating eloquently on the issue of relationship between Gandhi and Jinnah, etc. But we still have the main subject article at hand.
Can you help us get back to the article? Or am I going to be subjected yet with another academic talk?
Respectfully submitted,
Behram B. Atashband
Dear kaalchakra:
Thank you for such a long worded post. Please rest assured, as I have stated in my previous posts, I have never found any Pakistani who starts a discussion about India`s partition. It has always been the Indians.
Whether it is Pakistani securalists or not is a question not for outsiders to contemplate. I admit, Pakistan, has a lot of problems internally. But we certainly do not need some Indian agent in the US educating us. I am well aware of the donations being asked around the US in Indian temple for the betterment of political parties in India. May be I am not a good writer, but I am well read.
You are absolutely right that people`s mind cannot be changed easily, and no body is suggesting that. All we were arguing about is that Gandhi had problems with women. And now suddenly I have talk about my overall political philosophy regarding India/Pakistan. I am old enough to understand when to keep quiet.
Some Gandhi lovers are trying to be benevolent in guidance, when none is needed. When I see an Indian, I see hatred written all over his face. He is dumbfounded that there are Parsis in Pakistan. And then, a Pakistan loving Parsi.
It appears by your writing skills that you are in the academic world. If correct, you are too theoretical.
[But I am fearful of the ultimate effectiveness of this new anti-Gandhism] There is no new wave of anti-Gandhism. You might consider a new wave of pro-nationalism, but never a new of anti-Gandhism. Frankly, Gandhi or for that matter most Indians, have always been very insignificant in my life.
Thank you for [I fully and enthusiastically share and for what it`s worth, endorse, the goal of Pakistani secularists (in fact, or in name, is immaterial)]. Then, should we expect a behavior modifications in your subsequent postings?
[More than most Indians, I realize that Jinnah deserves a fairer deal in terms of his reputation in India and abroad.] Jinnah, has always been a shining star abroad. He is the only freedom fighter who never went to jail. That speaks volumes on his political suaveness. Not to mention his professional attire, mannerism, and no nonsense behavior.
Your concern [this new anti-Gandhism] is elusive. There is no new anything regarding Gandhi, or Indian leaders. The only newness is for Advani to speak highly of Jinnah.
You are correct in asserting [Love and respect are very difficult sentiments to generate among us. Hatred and contempt come to us most naturally, almost uninvited.] As for me, I hate nobody. I will however reserve the right to defend my integrity.
Words are not needed, please continue showing by action [No one has to agree, but I will try to explain the best I can].
[This honor we must endow on everyone, even our dearest elders.] Your argument is similar to Anil`s in one of his earlier post, which I rejected. Older generation must be and will be held responsible for everything. And that is a fact.
[But there is a huge danger in moving beyond the defense of one`s own icon, into the territory of destroying someone else`s.] [Every child may think that his or her parents are fools, but few will sit by listening to other people launch similar ad-hominem attacks on their parents. Particularly, if their own overall evaluation has been positive. Foolishness and smarts are not the only dimensions on which we evaluate our elders.]
Practice what you preach. When you live in a glass house don`t throw stones at other house. Gandhi lovers have no idea of what is happening in the international political arena, and are just realizing the outcome of their hate filled agenda.
[Gandhi was not a Mahatma is a prescription for much trouble.] for whom?
Is it some sort of a hidden threat to knowledge, to truthfulness?
[It will re-create the unfortunate, unwise, and probably unreal binaries that many Indians and Pakistanis have been working to erase. The response of Indians on this board, I respectully submit, offers a telling insight. Even young Gujju (I was very pleasantly surprised) put aside his pure capitalism to make his stand clear.]
[Hopefully, you will see why Gandhi`s and Prophet Muhammad`s case is not identical.] I have always known that. You are repeating my vocabulary to me. Wah reh wah. Ulti ganga behe rahi hai kiya..... It is your Indian Gandhi lovers who must understand that.
I am trying to understand as I go along with your post
[To re-iterate my major concerns, a lot of work has been recently done (on Chowk and elsewhere) toward developing better Indo-Pak mutual understanding.] Agreed.
[That enterprize has required a lot of people to grow in many directions.] Okay.
[More than anything else, it has required us to grow spiritually. People have had to open their hearts to the desirability of going the extra mile to see things from OTHERS` point of view. So they could put themselves in the shoes of OTHER people. So they could convince themselves (never an easy job) that one can give others the same benefit of doubt that we so give to ourselves and to our own.] okay.
[That spiritual growth, along with the new understanding it has wrought, has been a collective victory for everyone.]
[I fear that in our new carelessness, all that mutual work, common achievements, will go down the drain. I am apprehensive about old pettinesses, and closed-heartedness coming back.] Then, please don`t be a part of this carelessness.
[It took a lot of genuine effort to recognize that Mr. Jinnah may not be entirely or solely at fault.] Great.
[It will take very little spiritual work to conclude that after all all those old prejudices against him were right on target, that he was indeed the evil incarnate many people have argued he was.] So?
[The reputation Mr. Jinnah enjoys in India is unfair] and that is what I have been arguing.
[but Indian bigotry or failure to understand history is not the only reason]. Then, why do you contribute to it?
[In fact, I humbly submit, those are not by any means the main reasons.] Well, Gandhi is the subject of this post and not Jinnah. Nevertheless, keep up your theoretical post.
[To get a perspective on the difficulties involved, consider the views Pakistanis themselves hold of him.] What has this got to do with Gandhi not liking women?
[I suspect that Jinnah is viewed no more fairly and accurately in Pakistan - the country he himself created - than in India - a country that has fewer reasons to think highly or accurately of him.] And that is all the more reason to see what Yasser`s effort has been all along.
[Jinnah was a great man.] Yes, agreed. Thank you.
[But that greatness can be established on a firm footing only by generating a particular mindset, first and foremost, within Pakistani itself]. Yes, agreed. We need to clear the outside rubbish first and then work inside or work form inside to outside. Pakistanis are quite capable of doing that. Thank you very much.
[It cannot be established by using a legalistic play of arguments to question Gandhi`s (or anyone else`s) greatness]. Then, please practice what you preach on the greatness of your own icon. And don`t bring Jinnah, as soon as any topic on Indian intellectual decay shows up.
[As always, Pakistani secularists have my best wishes.] Thank you. Then, please help us in this journey. Would you?
Thank you for pontificating eloquently on the issue of relationship between Gandhi and Jinnah, etc. But we still have the main subject article at hand.
Can you help us get back to the article? Or am I going to be subjected yet with another academic talk?
Respectfully submitted,
Behram B. Atashband
#1138 Posted by chowkstaff on October 10, 2005 1:53:27 pm
An interactor by the name of Beej spammed this article with over 500 replies all containing links to images on a single website. This is a gross misuse of Chowk space and possibly violation of the website from which the images were linked.
We have removed these replies/interacts from this article and apologize for the inconvenience caused to those who were accessing this page. Removal of these replies may cause irregular numbering of the remaining replies which will be fixed.
While Chowk allows html to share a image within context but misuse of this kind is a outright violation of Interact guidelines.
Sincerely,
Chowk Staff
We have removed these replies/interacts from this article and apologize for the inconvenience caused to those who were accessing this page. Removal of these replies may cause irregular numbering of the remaining replies which will be fixed.
While Chowk allows html to share a image within context but misuse of this kind is a outright violation of Interact guidelines.
Sincerely,
Chowk Staff
#1137 Posted by Edge on October 10, 2005 1:36:09 pm
Poor Neutred Effete Paki Parsi : ``Your troops are only apt in killing unarmed Kashmiris, and that is a fact.``
Yeah...right. Are you by chance a believer in the theory that was prevalent in Pakistan that `1 Pakistani soldier = 10 hindooo bania soldiers` ?
Remember 1971 ? Just to refresh your memory >
(Pakistan Army Officers lay down their side-arms as a formal act of surrender to the Indian Army in East Pakistan. )
Indian Army easily broke Jinnah`s dreamland into 2 equal parts , taking as POWs 100,000 Pakistani soldiers.
Pakistan Army is a bunch of chakkas - like you and your friend the Cuckolded Fool , Hamdani.
Yeah...right. Are you by chance a believer in the theory that was prevalent in Pakistan that `1 Pakistani soldier = 10 hindooo bania soldiers` ?
Remember 1971 ? Just to refresh your memory >
(Pakistan Army Officers lay down their side-arms as a formal act of surrender to the Indian Army in East Pakistan. )
Indian Army easily broke Jinnah`s dreamland into 2 equal parts , taking as POWs 100,000 Pakistani soldiers.
Pakistan Army is a bunch of chakkas - like you and your friend the Cuckolded Fool , Hamdani.
#1136 Posted by mohar11 on October 10, 2005 1:29:35 pm
Here is a gandhi-lover helping out pakis in their time of need.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/international/asia/10cnd-quake.html?hp
And then - we have pakis who are bad-mouthing the same gandhi-lovers....
so sad!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/international/asia/10cnd-quake.html?hp
And then - we have pakis who are bad-mouthing the same gandhi-lovers....
so sad!!!
#1135 Posted by Netizen on October 10, 2005 1:16:25 pm
Re: # 1132
``So, somehow you feel alright to degrade our sacred Atash Behram? ``
how many more lies, behram. where have i degraded your sacred fire?
``Jadav rana promised that we will be like sugar and that we will mix with the society at large. He never promised to give away Zarathushtra`s cherished ``Good Thoughts, Good Words, and Good Deeds`` principle. He never gave away the main principle of fighting evil away from life.``
mor am i claiming that. do you have reading comprehension problems?
``Hatred of one community is what I am questioning, and that is what Gandhi lovers are always promoting. ``
behram, i don`t know whats going on in your mind. calling gandhi woman-hater, in-authentic, with no integrity is questioning hatred w for a community? who is promoting hatred towards a community, we are asking for the facts about gandhi being a male chauvinist, racist, castiest.
``If my comments, hurts you,``
i am just frustated with your imbecile responses.
``but you have to see that Jinnah never wanted this type of Pakistan and that is what Yasser has been fighting all along.``
good for you and him but that doesn`t mean you call gandhi a despicabl foulmouthed person and question his integrity without any facts. does calling gandhi names makes pakistan a better place for minorities. you are yourself blinded by hatred for gandhi even claiming that he is not relevant today without knowing that secular india is a legacy of gandhi not jinnah. i have posted seceral articels about gandhis view on dalits, women, jew have you read any of them.
do you think by calling gandhi names, minorities will be safe in pak?
``but I would never scoop to such levels of intellectual bankruptcy that you are in at the moment. ``
whatever behram. you go ahead call gandhi whatever you want that will definitely leave you safe in pakistan.
``So, somehow you feel alright to degrade our sacred Atash Behram? ``
how many more lies, behram. where have i degraded your sacred fire?
``Jadav rana promised that we will be like sugar and that we will mix with the society at large. He never promised to give away Zarathushtra`s cherished ``Good Thoughts, Good Words, and Good Deeds`` principle. He never gave away the main principle of fighting evil away from life.``
mor am i claiming that. do you have reading comprehension problems?
``Hatred of one community is what I am questioning, and that is what Gandhi lovers are always promoting. ``
behram, i don`t know whats going on in your mind. calling gandhi woman-hater, in-authentic, with no integrity is questioning hatred w for a community? who is promoting hatred towards a community, we are asking for the facts about gandhi being a male chauvinist, racist, castiest.
``If my comments, hurts you,``
i am just frustated with your imbecile responses.
``but you have to see that Jinnah never wanted this type of Pakistan and that is what Yasser has been fighting all along.``
good for you and him but that doesn`t mean you call gandhi a despicabl foulmouthed person and question his integrity without any facts. does calling gandhi names makes pakistan a better place for minorities. you are yourself blinded by hatred for gandhi even claiming that he is not relevant today without knowing that secular india is a legacy of gandhi not jinnah. i have posted seceral articels about gandhis view on dalits, women, jew have you read any of them.
do you think by calling gandhi names, minorities will be safe in pak?
``but I would never scoop to such levels of intellectual bankruptcy that you are in at the moment. ``
whatever behram. you go ahead call gandhi whatever you want that will definitely leave you safe in pakistan.
#1134 Posted by Behram1 on October 10, 2005 1:09:58 pm
Re: # 1133
Dear Edge:
Finally, I am getting around responding to your snipes. Please don`t allow this to depress you, since I know that most Gandhi lovers have self-esteem problems. One has even developed Atish-e-Gaand. I recommended a Persian sugar cane or maybe bawajis.
So, let us see what your thought provoking or conversation advancing argument is
[Behram...respectfully...that is the land where you wear bangles and dance , extolling the virtues of the place and its Qaed.....] Oh, really I would not have recognized that, last time around when the thunderous Advani brought a million troops on its borders. Your troops are only apt in killing unarmed Kashmiris, and that is a fact.
But, pure common sense is surely a hard commodity available to Gandhi lovers these days.
Respectfully submitted,
Dear Edge:
Finally, I am getting around responding to your snipes. Please don`t allow this to depress you, since I know that most Gandhi lovers have self-esteem problems. One has even developed Atish-e-Gaand. I recommended a Persian sugar cane or maybe bawajis.
So, let us see what your thought provoking or conversation advancing argument is
[Behram...respectfully...that is the land where you wear bangles and dance , extolling the virtues of the place and its Qaed.....] Oh, really I would not have recognized that, last time around when the thunderous Advani brought a million troops on its borders. Your troops are only apt in killing unarmed Kashmiris, and that is a fact.
But, pure common sense is surely a hard commodity available to Gandhi lovers these days.
Respectfully submitted,
#1133 Posted by Edge on October 10, 2005 12:55:00 pm
Behram...respectfully...that is the land where you wear bangles and dance , extolling the virtues of the place and its Qaed.....
#1132 Posted by Behram1 on October 10, 2005 12:52:16 pm
Re: # 1126
Dear Netizen:
You write [this holiest of the holy fire would have extinguished long time back if it were not for the land of gandhi who gave refuge to your people and allowed them to practise their religion and traditions.] Agreed. So, somehow you feel alright to degrade our sacred Atash Behram?
And respectfully this is also Jinnah`s land, and my land, and manto`s land, and Aisha Sarwari`s land.
And, yet, we never talk bad about the hindoo religion. Gandhi lovers did, and do.
[now you acknowledge the deed of jadav rana by calling gandhi despicable, foul-mouthed?] Jadav rana promised that we will be like sugar and that we will mix with the society at large. He never promised to give away Zarathushtra`s cherished ``Good Thoughts, Good Words, and Good Deeds`` principle. He never gave away the main principle of fighting evil away from life.
Hatred of one community is what I am questioning, and that is what Gandhi lovers are always promoting.
If my comments, hurts you, I would apologize only on one condition for you and all those gandhi lovers to see how it hurts all of us.
Yes, I realize that [remember, your forefathers ran away from getting killed in a islamic country to preserve the holy fire], but you have to see that Jinnah never wanted this type of Pakistan [and now you are singing peans about a person who founded a islamic nation?], and that is what Yasser has been fighting all along. Do you not see that?
I might be [you are disgrace to your community.] but I would never scoop to such levels of intellectual bankruptcy that you are in at the moment.
Continuing to be respectful
Behram B. Atashband
Dear Netizen:
You write [this holiest of the holy fire would have extinguished long time back if it were not for the land of gandhi who gave refuge to your people and allowed them to practise their religion and traditions.] Agreed. So, somehow you feel alright to degrade our sacred Atash Behram?
And respectfully this is also Jinnah`s land, and my land, and manto`s land, and Aisha Sarwari`s land.
And, yet, we never talk bad about the hindoo religion. Gandhi lovers did, and do.
[now you acknowledge the deed of jadav rana by calling gandhi despicable, foul-mouthed?] Jadav rana promised that we will be like sugar and that we will mix with the society at large. He never promised to give away Zarathushtra`s cherished ``Good Thoughts, Good Words, and Good Deeds`` principle. He never gave away the main principle of fighting evil away from life.
Hatred of one community is what I am questioning, and that is what Gandhi lovers are always promoting.
If my comments, hurts you, I would apologize only on one condition for you and all those gandhi lovers to see how it hurts all of us.
Yes, I realize that [remember, your forefathers ran away from getting killed in a islamic country to preserve the holy fire], but you have to see that Jinnah never wanted this type of Pakistan [and now you are singing peans about a person who founded a islamic nation?], and that is what Yasser has been fighting all along. Do you not see that?
I might be [you are disgrace to your community.] but I would never scoop to such levels of intellectual bankruptcy that you are in at the moment.
Continuing to be respectful
Behram B. Atashband
#1131 Posted by KaalChakra on October 10, 2005 12:46:01 pm
Dear Behram1
A little late and long reply - long, because this, IMHO, is an important issue. And because I genuinely reciprocate your kind regards. I am under no illusions that people`s minds can be easily changed. Yet, if you will patiently read, I will share my very personal point of view.
I am just quite alarmed at this new, viciously anti-Gandhi turn that a segment of Pakistani secularism (I think I can count you in that group of secularists, at least loosely) is taking.
I fully and enthusiastically share and for what it`s worth, endorse, the goal of Pakistani secularists (in fact, or in name, is immaterial). You have mentioned the burden of unfair reputation that Mr. Jinnah carries. More than most Indians, I realize that Jinnah deserves a fairer deal in terms of his reputation in India and abroad.
But I am fearful of the ultimate effectiveness of this new anti-Gandhism - what it may bring and what it may not bring. I am apprehensive of the difficulty and uncertainty of its intentional goals, and the ease and certainty of its unintentional consequences. I am almost certain that it will perpetrate a huge amount of immediate harm, while its actual benefits will remain a mirage.
The basic reason for that is how we humans are built: Love and respect are very difficult sentiments to generate among us. Hatred and contempt come to us most naturally, almost uninvited.
No one has to agree, but I will try to explain the best I can.
The opposition is not to anyone`s right to (or wisdom in) criticizing anybody else, including Gandhi.
Like all others, Gandhi is a candidate for criticism. As has been mentioned here frequently, many Indians reject his views on a number of subjects. Many now question whether he could have done some things differently. To call him an old stupid fool is now almost a badge of honor among India`s new youth.
This honor we must endow on everyone, even our dearest elders. Children grow and mature only after they have claimed that their parents were old stupid fools. This ritual serves to establish the integrity of our own identity, and our own authenticity.
So, fairly and wisely done, creating a common understanding of Gandhi`s mistakes and shortcomings can be a useful endeavor. I agree that it will help reduce the generally-found hostility to Jinnah that rankles (and should rankle) many proud Pakistanis. Together, Indians and Pakistanis may even achieve other positive goals for themselves and for each other.
But there is a huge danger in moving beyond the defense of one`s own icon, into the territory of destroying someone else`s.
Every child may think that his or her parents are fools, but few will sit by listening to other people launch similar ad-hominem attacks on their parents. Particularly, if their own overall evaluation has been positive. Foolishness and smarts are not the only dimensions on which we evaluate our elders.
Almost all Indians, including those who totally reject his views as archaic, maintain as high an evaluation of Gandhi as ``a human being,`` as one can assume Pakistanis do of Mr. Jinnah. Therefore, unwarnished and one-sided hostility to the memory of Gandhi, or the declared goal of solely establishing that Gandhi was not a Mahatma is a prescription for much trouble.
It will re-create the unfortunate, unwise, and probably unreal binaries that many Indians and Pakistanis have been working to erase. The response of Indians on this board, I respectully submit, offers a telling insight. Even young Gujju (I was very pleasantly surprised) put aside his pure capitalism to make his stand clear.
Comparisons have been suggested with the criticism levelled at Prophet Muhammad. I submit that there would be NO NEED, and it would be FOOLISH to call Prophet Muhammad names, were more of his followers (able) to openly question Prophet Muhammad`s follies. Or if fewer people thought it ideal to live and behave like him.
So long as that is not the case, so long as Prophet Muhammad`s life and his ideas continue to be forcefully projected, his ancient follies present a clear and active danger, while Gandhi`s stupidities and follies, in the very fact that they have been rejected, and that people are allowed to openly reject them, have been neutralized.
Focusing solely on appreciating someone`s good side is sheer stupidity if it also necessitates the perpetration of, and inability to reject, their mistakes (as we see them - that is the only commonly accepted measure we have). However, once we have neutralized someone`s follies, one can (and to be fair, should) move on to appreciating their good sides.
That`s why, in ultimately deciding the overall, current worth of a human being, the most important element becomes the person`s lagacy of prevailing ideas and practices.
Hopefully, you will see why Gandhi`s and Prophet Muhammad`s case is not identical.
In general, people who do not claim prophethood should only be evaluated by the standards of those others who too do not claim prophethood. By the same reasoning, it may be quite fair to evaluate Gandhi by the standards of those who have been awarded sainthood in our quite unsaintly world.
To re-iterate my major concerns, a lot of work has been recently done (on Chowk and elsewhere) toward developing better Indo-Pak mutual understanding. That enterprize has required a lot of people to grow in many directions. More than anything else, it has required us to grow spiritually. People have had to open their hearts to the desirability of going the extra mile to see things from OTHERS` point of view. So they could put themselves in the shoes of OTHER people. So they could convince themselves (never an easy job) that one can give others the same benefit of doubt that we so give to ourselves and to our own.
That spiritual growth, along with the new understanding it has wrought, has been a collective victory for everyone.
I fear that in our new carelessness, all that mutual work, common achievements, will go down the drain. I am apprehensive about old pettinesses, and closed-heartedness coming back.
It took a lot of genuine effort to recognize that Mr. Jinnah may not be entirely or solely at fault. It will take very little spiritual work to conclude that after all all those old prejudices against him were right on target, that he was indeed the evil incarnate many people have argued he was.
The reputation Mr. Jinnah enjoys in India is unfair, but Indian bigotry or failure to understand history is not the only reason. In fact, I humbly submit, those are not by any means the main reasons. To get a perspective on the difficulties involved, consider the views Pakistanis themselves hold of him.
I suspect that Jinnah is viewed no more fairly and accurately in Pakistan - the country he himself created - than in India - a country that has fewer reasons to think highly or accurately of him.
Jinnah was a great man. But that greatness can be established on a firm footing only by generating a particular mindset, first and foremost, within Pakistani itself. It cannot be established by using a legalistic play of arguments to question Gandhi`s (or anyone else`s) greatness. That approach is bound to frustrate the work done on behalf of promoting goodwill for Jinnah`s memory.
Proof through legal hair-splitting does not endows greatness, nor does greatness ever need such effort. Most great people and their admirers are not lawyers. They neither act nor care to think like lawyers. Lawyers want to prove. Great men and women seek to inspire.
Please help Jinnah`s memory inspire great things, and good behavior. That is the only way to `prove` his greatness. It will give the only proof that matters. It will also make it irrational for the rest of the world NOT to respect the man.
As always, Pakistani secularists have my best wishes.
A little late and long reply - long, because this, IMHO, is an important issue. And because I genuinely reciprocate your kind regards. I am under no illusions that people`s minds can be easily changed. Yet, if you will patiently read, I will share my very personal point of view.
I am just quite alarmed at this new, viciously anti-Gandhi turn that a segment of Pakistani secularism (I think I can count you in that group of secularists, at least loosely) is taking.
I fully and enthusiastically share and for what it`s worth, endorse, the goal of Pakistani secularists (in fact, or in name, is immaterial). You have mentioned the burden of unfair reputation that Mr. Jinnah carries. More than most Indians, I realize that Jinnah deserves a fairer deal in terms of his reputation in India and abroad.
But I am fearful of the ultimate effectiveness of this new anti-Gandhism - what it may bring and what it may not bring. I am apprehensive of the difficulty and uncertainty of its intentional goals, and the ease and certainty of its unintentional consequences. I am almost certain that it will perpetrate a huge amount of immediate harm, while its actual benefits will remain a mirage.
The basic reason for that is how we humans are built: Love and respect are very difficult sentiments to generate among us. Hatred and contempt come to us most naturally, almost uninvited.
No one has to agree, but I will try to explain the best I can.
The opposition is not to anyone`s right to (or wisdom in) criticizing anybody else, including Gandhi.
Like all others, Gandhi is a candidate for criticism. As has been mentioned here frequently, many Indians reject his views on a number of subjects. Many now question whether he could have done some things differently. To call him an old stupid fool is now almost a badge of honor among India`s new youth.
This honor we must endow on everyone, even our dearest elders. Children grow and mature only after they have claimed that their parents were old stupid fools. This ritual serves to establish the integrity of our own identity, and our own authenticity.
So, fairly and wisely done, creating a common understanding of Gandhi`s mistakes and shortcomings can be a useful endeavor. I agree that it will help reduce the generally-found hostility to Jinnah that rankles (and should rankle) many proud Pakistanis. Together, Indians and Pakistanis may even achieve other positive goals for themselves and for each other.
But there is a huge danger in moving beyond the defense of one`s own icon, into the territory of destroying someone else`s.
Every child may think that his or her parents are fools, but few will sit by listening to other people launch similar ad-hominem attacks on their parents. Particularly, if their own overall evaluation has been positive. Foolishness and smarts are not the only dimensions on which we evaluate our elders.
Almost all Indians, including those who totally reject his views as archaic, maintain as high an evaluation of Gandhi as ``a human being,`` as one can assume Pakistanis do of Mr. Jinnah. Therefore, unwarnished and one-sided hostility to the memory of Gandhi, or the declared goal of solely establishing that Gandhi was not a Mahatma is a prescription for much trouble.
It will re-create the unfortunate, unwise, and probably unreal binaries that many Indians and Pakistanis have been working to erase. The response of Indians on this board, I respectully submit, offers a telling insight. Even young Gujju (I was very pleasantly surprised) put aside his pure capitalism to make his stand clear.
Comparisons have been suggested with the criticism levelled at Prophet Muhammad. I submit that there would be NO NEED, and it would be FOOLISH to call Prophet Muhammad names, were more of his followers (able) to openly question Prophet Muhammad`s follies. Or if fewer people thought it ideal to live and behave like him.
So long as that is not the case, so long as Prophet Muhammad`s life and his ideas continue to be forcefully projected, his ancient follies present a clear and active danger, while Gandhi`s stupidities and follies, in the very fact that they have been rejected, and that people are allowed to openly reject them, have been neutralized.
Focusing solely on appreciating someone`s good side is sheer stupidity if it also necessitates the perpetration of, and inability to reject, their mistakes (as we see them - that is the only commonly accepted measure we have). However, once we have neutralized someone`s follies, one can (and to be fair, should) move on to appreciating their good sides.
That`s why, in ultimately deciding the overall, current worth of a human being, the most important element becomes the person`s lagacy of prevailing ideas and practices.
Hopefully, you will see why Gandhi`s and Prophet Muhammad`s case is not identical.
In general, people who do not claim prophethood should only be evaluated by the standards of those others who too do not claim prophethood. By the same reasoning, it may be quite fair to evaluate Gandhi by the standards of those who have been awarded sainthood in our quite unsaintly world.
To re-iterate my major concerns, a lot of work has been recently done (on Chowk and elsewhere) toward developing better Indo-Pak mutual understanding. That enterprize has required a lot of people to grow in many directions. More than anything else, it has required us to grow spiritually. People have had to open their hearts to the desirability of going the extra mile to see things from OTHERS` point of view. So they could put themselves in the shoes of OTHER people. So they could convince themselves (never an easy job) that one can give others the same benefit of doubt that we so give to ourselves and to our own.
That spiritual growth, along with the new understanding it has wrought, has been a collective victory for everyone.
I fear that in our new carelessness, all that mutual work, common achievements, will go down the drain. I am apprehensive about old pettinesses, and closed-heartedness coming back.
It took a lot of genuine effort to recognize that Mr. Jinnah may not be entirely or solely at fault. It will take very little spiritual work to conclude that after all all those old prejudices against him were right on target, that he was indeed the evil incarnate many people have argued he was.
The reputation Mr. Jinnah enjoys in India is unfair, but Indian bigotry or failure to understand history is not the only reason. In fact, I humbly submit, those are not by any means the main reasons. To get a perspective on the difficulties involved, consider the views Pakistanis themselves hold of him.
I suspect that Jinnah is viewed no more fairly and accurately in Pakistan - the country he himself created - than in India - a country that has fewer reasons to think highly or accurately of him.
Jinnah was a great man. But that greatness can be established on a firm footing only by generating a particular mindset, first and foremost, within Pakistani itself. It cannot be established by using a legalistic play of arguments to question Gandhi`s (or anyone else`s) greatness. That approach is bound to frustrate the work done on behalf of promoting goodwill for Jinnah`s memory.
Proof through legal hair-splitting does not endows greatness, nor does greatness ever need such effort. Most great people and their admirers are not lawyers. They neither act nor care to think like lawyers. Lawyers want to prove. Great men and women seek to inspire.
Please help Jinnah`s memory inspire great things, and good behavior. That is the only way to `prove` his greatness. It will give the only proof that matters. It will also make it irrational for the rest of the world NOT to respect the man.
As always, Pakistani secularists have my best wishes.
#1130 Posted by Netizen on October 10, 2005 12:45:13 pm
Re: # 1124
``When Jinnah wanted hindu-muslim unity he was 100% authentic because that is exactly what he wanted. When Gandhi did not want the breakup of India, he was 100% authentic up untill August 14, 1947; because India was united. Gandhi became inauthentic after that. ``
so as i understand, jinnah had integrity for some time, then he lost it and then after getting pakistan he once again had integrity. wooo..... you must have studied jinnah even more than the cheer-leader.
regardign you, all along you were saying that jinnah had no blot so you had integrity but now you accept that he had no integrity some time in his life so that maked you also inauthentic, as your stand is different than what it was until 2 hours earlier.
that means you have no integrity.
WOOOF... at last i have become an expert on the sciences of integrity.
``Knowledge is just like love, it is in the eyes of the beholder``
c`mon, this is a stupid statement
``And when the corrupt thought of Gandhi lovers started comparing Gandhi with the Prophet of Islam continued unrestricted that I decided to really get involved.``
please tell me what did you bring in? unsubstantiated conclusions? To maligh gandhi
``And here is where I really jumped in I provided some criteria between values and authenticity. ``
we would appreciate if you gives some examples from gandhis life as i have given several view-points.
``When Jinnah wanted hindu-muslim unity he was 100% authentic because that is exactly what he wanted. When Gandhi did not want the breakup of India, he was 100% authentic up untill August 14, 1947; because India was united. Gandhi became inauthentic after that. ``
so as i understand, jinnah had integrity for some time, then he lost it and then after getting pakistan he once again had integrity. wooo..... you must have studied jinnah even more than the cheer-leader.
regardign you, all along you were saying that jinnah had no blot so you had integrity but now you accept that he had no integrity some time in his life so that maked you also inauthentic, as your stand is different than what it was until 2 hours earlier.
that means you have no integrity.
WOOOF... at last i have become an expert on the sciences of integrity.
``Knowledge is just like love, it is in the eyes of the beholder``
c`mon, this is a stupid statement
``And when the corrupt thought of Gandhi lovers started comparing Gandhi with the Prophet of Islam continued unrestricted that I decided to really get involved.``
please tell me what did you bring in? unsubstantiated conclusions? To maligh gandhi
``And here is where I really jumped in I provided some criteria between values and authenticity. ``
we would appreciate if you gives some examples from gandhis life as i have given several view-points.