Gandhi in The Handmaid’s Tale
Aisha Sarwari October 4, 2005
#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.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#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.
#1129 Posted by Edge on October 10, 2005 12:40:14 pm
Behram..you realise you are just a Neutered Effete Paki Parsi , right ?
#1128 Posted by Edge on October 10, 2005 12:36:28 pm
Albert Einstein : `` Gandhi was the greatest human being ever to walk the face of the earth``
Nelson Mandela , Martin Luther King JNR - both heavily inspired by Gandhi and his philosophy , which they used in their own struggles in their own countries , against apartheid and for equal rights for colored people.
Cuckolded Fool , Potty Mouthed Wife and their friend the Neutred Effete Paki Parsi : `` Gandhi was ugly , racist , evil , misogynist hypocrite , and oh yeah , Ambedkar once called Gandhi a hindu fanatic , and Ambedkar`s word is the word of the Lord. ``
But ultimately .....it doesn`t matter what any of the above luminaries have to say , for there is only one God in today`s world and that is $$$ and the Market is the prophet ....atleast that is what we new age hindooo fanatics worship.
MK Gandhi , along with Albert Einstein and perhaps JFK is one of the greatest brand names in history. That is why Fortune-50 companies with $100 billion turnover like Apple, HP and IBM use him to sell their productS....
Consider this...
No matter what The Cuckolded Fool and his Potty Mouthed Wife say about Gandhi , he shall remain one of the most globally recognisable names - respected and famous , known to every 8-9 year old school kid in Boston as well as in Rome , in Barcelona and in Sydney.
Your Jinnah , no matter how hard you try to push him , is a minor provincial or local leader famous in a little third world country called Pakistan and infamous in the rival country , India. Bascally only known to third world subcontinental types. Jinnah is the Pakistani actress Meera compared to Gandhi`s Marlyn Monroe....
Meanwhile , The Cuckolded Fool , his Potty Mouthed Wife and their Neutred Effete Paki Parsi friend continue behaving like famished ugly street dogs drenched with drainage water and barking at the stars..
Nelson Mandela , Martin Luther King JNR - both heavily inspired by Gandhi and his philosophy , which they used in their own struggles in their own countries , against apartheid and for equal rights for colored people.
Cuckolded Fool , Potty Mouthed Wife and their friend the Neutred Effete Paki Parsi : `` Gandhi was ugly , racist , evil , misogynist hypocrite , and oh yeah , Ambedkar once called Gandhi a hindu fanatic , and Ambedkar`s word is the word of the Lord. ``
But ultimately .....it doesn`t matter what any of the above luminaries have to say , for there is only one God in today`s world and that is $$$ and the Market is the prophet ....atleast that is what we new age hindooo fanatics worship.
MK Gandhi , along with Albert Einstein and perhaps JFK is one of the greatest brand names in history. That is why Fortune-50 companies with $100 billion turnover like Apple, HP and IBM use him to sell their productS....
Consider this...
No matter what The Cuckolded Fool and his Potty Mouthed Wife say about Gandhi , he shall remain one of the most globally recognisable names - respected and famous , known to every 8-9 year old school kid in Boston as well as in Rome , in Barcelona and in Sydney.
Your Jinnah , no matter how hard you try to push him , is a minor provincial or local leader famous in a little third world country called Pakistan and infamous in the rival country , India. Bascally only known to third world subcontinental types. Jinnah is the Pakistani actress Meera compared to Gandhi`s Marlyn Monroe....
Meanwhile , The Cuckolded Fool , his Potty Mouthed Wife and their Neutred Effete Paki Parsi friend continue behaving like famished ugly street dogs drenched with drainage water and barking at the stars..
#1127 Posted by Behram1 on October 10, 2005 12:29:32 pm
Dear Chowstaffers,
I don`t know how this works but keep your main page up for another month or so before it slides off to oblivion.
We are determined to crush the goons of Gandhi lovers.
Respectfully submitted,
Behram B. Atashband
#1126 Posted by Netizen on October 10, 2005 12:25:22 pm
Re: # 1122
behram:
``Did you not know that Behram is the holiest fire of the Zoroastrians. Did you not know that Atash is sacred to us? ``
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.
``You are as foul mouthed as your despicable Gandhi was?``
and now you acknowledge the deed of jadav rana by calling gandhi despicable, foul-mouthed? i challenge you to show how foul-mouthed gandhi was. what you are saying about gandhi doesn`t make you a despicable liar?
remember, your forefathers ran away from getting killed in a islamic country to preserve the holy fire and now you are singing peans about a person who founded a islamic nation? you are disgrace to your community.
behram:
``Did you not know that Behram is the holiest fire of the Zoroastrians. Did you not know that Atash is sacred to us? ``
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.
``You are as foul mouthed as your despicable Gandhi was?``
and now you acknowledge the deed of jadav rana by calling gandhi despicable, foul-mouthed? i challenge you to show how foul-mouthed gandhi was. what you are saying about gandhi doesn`t make you a despicable liar?
remember, your forefathers ran away from getting killed in a islamic country to preserve the holy fire and now you are singing peans about a person who founded a islamic nation? you are disgrace to your community.
#1125 Posted by Raw_Dust on October 10, 2005 12:25:08 pm
Beej:
these are wonderful pictures!. could you elaborate on the people behind this project? There seems to be a narrative flow throughout these photographs which is kind of remarkable thing to pull off given the turbulent times that these were made.
many thanks.
these are wonderful pictures!. could you elaborate on the people behind this project? There seems to be a narrative flow throughout these photographs which is kind of remarkable thing to pull off given the turbulent times that these were made.
many thanks.
#1124 Posted by Behram1 on October 10, 2005 12:14:46 pm
Re: # 1104
Dear Netizen:
Again, with due respects. Integrity to me is to do what I say I will do.
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.
When, on the other hand, Jinnah was forced out of his hindu-muslim unity dream then of course momentarily he could be considered out of integrity. He regained his integrity with his determination to get Pakistan. And that is where he is 100% full of integrity.
Besides, we never consider Jinnah to be a Mahatama.
Knowledge is just like love, it is in the eyes of the beholder [earlier i thought you really have some scoop on gandhi and will defend it intelligently as you have done in case romair]
[you are a silly debator and have no grasp of topic at hand]
Knowledge is just like love, it is in the eyes of the beholder
[you jumped in the bandwagon claiming gandhi was anti-women solely on the basis of the article and 300+ posts.]
This is false here is my very first post:
#44 by behram1 on October 4, 2005 8:52pm PT
Dear Aisha,
Thank you for an excellent article.
Several of my Parsi friends from India did not have high regards for Gandhi, although he was from Gujrat. Those who were well read always admired Jinnah because he was the most emancipated person of his time.
Keep up the good work.
Respectfully submitted,
Behram B. Atashband
And here is my first post critical of a Gandhi lover
#46 by behram1 on October 4, 2005 9:45pm PT
Re: # 40
Dear Anil:
With your permission I like to respond to your post #40 to Aisha.
You suggest that all men of Gandhi’s generation had similar views regarding women. If this logic is true, then in today’s world all men should have similar views regarding women. And you would agree that they do not.
I have always condemned and written-off certain aspects of our previous society. It is not what Gandhi has said or not said that I would like to debate. You must agree that when there is a discussion regarding India with non-Indians (read westerners, mainly Americans), there is a certain amount of pride that Gandhi-lovers exude, whilst Pakistanis and/or Jinnah are mentioned as a jest.
As you have rightly suggested, Gandhi is dead physically. But his values and those who get political mileage out of his values are still around and that is exactly what is being discussed.
Aisha, has shown no malice towards the dead Gandhi. She has only enlightened another view about the political Gandhi, which some of us would like to observe and understand.
You are absolutely correct that this person was a failed lawyer, and until very late in his life he was a failed politician as well. I am amazed that his values does not fit today’s world that is barely 60 years after his death. And some Gandhi lovers have deflected the topic at hand and tried to articulate the happenings of the world some 200 years ago.
By your own assertion, you who have lived in the US since 1970, should know this well by now that those who desire public life expose their values and views about everything, from early childhood. With such a standard, why should Gandhi be an exception?
Anil, your assertion that Indians have moved on and left August 15 behind is completely bogus and cannot be validated. Your effort, nevertheless, is admirable.
Personally I believe that Aisha has done an excellent service by highlighting the inadequacies of a corrupt politician. If you have moved on, thank you. Please don`t waste your time here.
Respectfully submitted,
Behram B. Atashband
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.
And here is where I really jumped in I provided some criteria between values and authenticity.
#267 by behram1 on October 6, 2005 9:29am PT
Dear Yasser and all,
Thank you very much for all the efforts that you have taken in disseminating the voluminous information regarding the subject matter. This should create the enhanced value of our lives as we go forward. Forward-looking individuals (or groups) would normally want the world to be a better place while exiting the world. Almost all thoughts and values are evaluated against a barometer of how are we contributing to the conversation going forward to make the future a better place. As a society we provide integrity to almost all our values. (My definition of integrity is I do what I say that I will do).
We discard values that are not in congruence with the prevailing norms of our society, whether these are today’s values or values of yesteryears. If these values are not in conformance with the actual inner-self value then the world recognizes the in-authenticity of the proposed value. Regardless of how popular the individual or the group may be, it is the complete (read 100%) value that is authenticated.
It appears Gandhi continued his struggle with this in-authenticity. What he projected for public discourse, what he preached was not what he practiced. As an individual he was not an authentic person.
Respectfully submitted,
Behram B. Atashband
So you see, I have remained values oriented and consistent with my integrity.
I am sorry if Gandhi had no integrity from time to time.
As always respectfully submitted,
Behram B. Atashband
Dear Netizen:
Again, with due respects. Integrity to me is to do what I say I will do.
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.
When, on the other hand, Jinnah was forced out of his hindu-muslim unity dream then of course momentarily he could be considered out of integrity. He regained his integrity with his determination to get Pakistan. And that is where he is 100% full of integrity.
Besides, we never consider Jinnah to be a Mahatama.
Knowledge is just like love, it is in the eyes of the beholder [earlier i thought you really have some scoop on gandhi and will defend it intelligently as you have done in case romair]
[you are a silly debator and have no grasp of topic at hand]
Knowledge is just like love, it is in the eyes of the beholder
[you jumped in the bandwagon claiming gandhi was anti-women solely on the basis of the article and 300+ posts.]
This is false here is my very first post:
#44 by behram1 on October 4, 2005 8:52pm PT
Dear Aisha,
Thank you for an excellent article.
Several of my Parsi friends from India did not have high regards for Gandhi, although he was from Gujrat. Those who were well read always admired Jinnah because he was the most emancipated person of his time.
Keep up the good work.
Respectfully submitted,
Behram B. Atashband
And here is my first post critical of a Gandhi lover
#46 by behram1 on October 4, 2005 9:45pm PT
Re: # 40
Dear Anil:
With your permission I like to respond to your post #40 to Aisha.
You suggest that all men of Gandhi’s generation had similar views regarding women. If this logic is true, then in today’s world all men should have similar views regarding women. And you would agree that they do not.
I have always condemned and written-off certain aspects of our previous society. It is not what Gandhi has said or not said that I would like to debate. You must agree that when there is a discussion regarding India with non-Indians (read westerners, mainly Americans), there is a certain amount of pride that Gandhi-lovers exude, whilst Pakistanis and/or Jinnah are mentioned as a jest.
As you have rightly suggested, Gandhi is dead physically. But his values and those who get political mileage out of his values are still around and that is exactly what is being discussed.
Aisha, has shown no malice towards the dead Gandhi. She has only enlightened another view about the political Gandhi, which some of us would like to observe and understand.
You are absolutely correct that this person was a failed lawyer, and until very late in his life he was a failed politician as well. I am amazed that his values does not fit today’s world that is barely 60 years after his death. And some Gandhi lovers have deflected the topic at hand and tried to articulate the happenings of the world some 200 years ago.
By your own assertion, you who have lived in the US since 1970, should know this well by now that those who desire public life expose their values and views about everything, from early childhood. With such a standard, why should Gandhi be an exception?
Anil, your assertion that Indians have moved on and left August 15 behind is completely bogus and cannot be validated. Your effort, nevertheless, is admirable.
Personally I believe that Aisha has done an excellent service by highlighting the inadequacies of a corrupt politician. If you have moved on, thank you. Please don`t waste your time here.
Respectfully submitted,
Behram B. Atashband
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.
And here is where I really jumped in I provided some criteria between values and authenticity.
#267 by behram1 on October 6, 2005 9:29am PT
Dear Yasser and all,
Thank you very much for all the efforts that you have taken in disseminating the voluminous information regarding the subject matter. This should create the enhanced value of our lives as we go forward. Forward-looking individuals (or groups) would normally want the world to be a better place while exiting the world. Almost all thoughts and values are evaluated against a barometer of how are we contributing to the conversation going forward to make the future a better place. As a society we provide integrity to almost all our values. (My definition of integrity is I do what I say that I will do).
We discard values that are not in congruence with the prevailing norms of our society, whether these are today’s values or values of yesteryears. If these values are not in conformance with the actual inner-self value then the world recognizes the in-authenticity of the proposed value. Regardless of how popular the individual or the group may be, it is the complete (read 100%) value that is authenticated.
It appears Gandhi continued his struggle with this in-authenticity. What he projected for public discourse, what he preached was not what he practiced. As an individual he was not an authentic person.
Respectfully submitted,
Behram B. Atashband
So you see, I have remained values oriented and consistent with my integrity.
I am sorry if Gandhi had no integrity from time to time.
As always respectfully submitted,
Behram B. Atashband
#1123 Posted by Godot on October 10, 2005 12:02:03 pm
Sri-paiye
tch tch...foaming at the mouth and forgetting your manners and etiquettes, eh! Go gargle with Listerine and brush your teeth. Your breath stinks and everyone at Chowk can smell it.
Behram – give this guy a break. He’s in a frenzy. He needs help, not admonitions. His blood-pressure has shot through the roof. He can get a stroke. Get him a glass of brandy to calm him down. And while you are at it, can I have a martini, please, shaken, not stirred.
#1122 Posted by Behram1 on October 10, 2005 11:40:19 am
Re: # 1118
Dear rsridhar:
We are still OK. We don`t call other`s holiest of holy name names. Did you not know that Behram is the holiest fire of the Zoroastrians. Did you not know that Atash is sacred to us?
No, of course not. You are as foul mouthed as your despicable Gandhi was? Show me one great Parsi leader as astute as Sir Dadabhoy Navroji, the champion of India`s freedom to support Gandhi and his despicable qualities of leadership.
[What have they done to u in Pukistan man?] We see love and respect where ever we are and that is a fact. Unfortunately for you, it is only religiosity.
Respectfully submitting,
Dear rsridhar:
We are still OK. We don`t call other`s holiest of holy name names. Did you not know that Behram is the holiest fire of the Zoroastrians. Did you not know that Atash is sacred to us?
No, of course not. You are as foul mouthed as your despicable Gandhi was? Show me one great Parsi leader as astute as Sir Dadabhoy Navroji, the champion of India`s freedom to support Gandhi and his despicable qualities of leadership.
[What have they done to u in Pukistan man?] We see love and respect where ever we are and that is a fact. Unfortunately for you, it is only religiosity.
Respectfully submitting,
#1121 Posted by rsridhar on October 10, 2005 11:32:53 am
re:#1115 by godot
looks like u are having a fit there. or perhaps somebody did something to your rear end.
Sridhar
looks like u are having a fit there. or perhaps somebody did something to your rear end.
Sridhar
#1120 Posted by Behram1 on October 10, 2005 11:31:48 am
Re: # 1114
Dear rsridhar:
Did you get that pakistani sugar cane to quelch the ``Atash`` in your ``gaand``. Or may be you need a bawa jis? Or do you want persian`s?
Stop your rubbish and learn how to be dignified.
Is it not true that Gandhi used to sleep with her grand daughters on the same bed? Whatever happened to his wife?
Utterly disguted with Gandhi lovers, but still will continue to submit respectfully,
#1119 Posted by soysauce on October 10, 2005 11:29:31 am
Chowkidars, please consider going back to the old system of displaying only a limited number of interacts per page. Under your present system, this page takes forever to load even with a 6MB cable modem connection.
#1118 Posted by rsridhar on October 10, 2005 11:26:52 am
re:#928 by behram1
Abey Berahm Aatish-e-gaand,
What have they done to u in Pukistan man?
You guys were O.K as long as u were in India.
Sridhar
Abey Berahm Aatish-e-gaand,
What have they done to u in Pukistan man?
You guys were O.K as long as u were in India.
Sridhar
#1117 Posted by soysauce on October 10, 2005 11:26:44 am
The pictures tell you that the men and women around Gandhiji were there of their own free will and that this was no cult - there was no dress code and you could wear whatever you wanted. Whether Gandhiji was autocratic or not, he didn`t brainwash people into doing what they otherwise would not do. What distinguishes him from every other ordinary person is that deliberately and methodically transcended that ordinaryness. He didn`t have an imposing personality nor was he physically attractive as some astute pakistanis have observed. And yet people congretated around him because he was a natural leader. They trusted him to make hard decisions which he did. He also saw the freedom struggle as something bigger than simply exchanging one set of rulers for another. He wanted the individuals, the villages, the communities to be free in being able to determine their economic and social terms, and he wanted to congress party disbanded.
Even as intellectuals such as Nehru were eyeing socialism and big public projects as salvation for a poor and depleted nation, Gandhiji sought to revitalize self-governance at the local level and build a nation from the ground up. He was for decentralization whereas, in the aftermath of the Partition, pretty much every other bigwig wanted a strong, authoritarian central government.
Even as intellectuals such as Nehru were eyeing socialism and big public projects as salvation for a poor and depleted nation, Gandhiji sought to revitalize self-governance at the local level and build a nation from the ground up. He was for decentralization whereas, in the aftermath of the Partition, pretty much every other bigwig wanted a strong, authoritarian central government.
#1116 Posted by rsridhar on October 10, 2005 11:26:39 am
re:#928 by behram1
Abey Berahm Aatish-e-gaand,
What have they done to u in Pukistan man?
You guys were O.K as long as u were in India.
Sridhar
Abey Berahm Aatish-e-gaand,
What have they done to u in Pukistan man?
You guys were O.K as long as u were in India.
Sridhar
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- SureshM: Re: # 36 God Bless... Uneven Democracy : The
- SureshM: Re: # 59 "kuwait... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 35 this... Uneven Democracy : The
- jayp: Re: # 55 Good muslim... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- jayp: Re: # 53 thanks madani... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- Pardesi: Breaking News for ahmedmadani... Uneven Democracy : The
- a_r_j_u_n325: #94 Posted by... The Strange Case of
- a_r_j_u_n325: #95 Posted by... The Strange Case of
