Gandhi in The Handmaid’s Tale

Re#129

Your interact made me curious about Ayesha Jalal. I went to the web and checked out her stuff on-line. She looks like an okay person to me – she holds some asinine views on Kashmir, like many of her compatriots from that part of the world. Big deal!

But if she indeed has this grand ambition of “uniting” the people of Pakistan against Gandhi – it is perhaps one of the most foolish ideas I can imagine!

This is not to say that she may not actually be doing something along those lines. Sometimes these “professor-types” – they prove to be the worst of ignoramuses.

The plain fact ought to have dawned upon anybody by now – that the vast majority of population on each side of the border cares little about Gandhi (if more did, the subcontinent would not be in the pickle it finds itself in) – and those few who do, they do so deeply – alienating such individuals is the fastest way to torpedo any meeting of minds.

And to tell the truth, the more I get an insight into some of these Pakistani “liberal” minds – the more revulsion I feel – at least with the mullahs, one knows where one stands – they are honest with their prejudices.

The real problem with individuals like Mantolies (and probably the professor, if what you imply is accurate) is that they have no ground roots – they do not connect with their own people enough to reason with such people and have the mental bankruptcy to imagine that having a fake phantom like Gandhi to beat up on will somehow make such population reasonable – this level of intellectual depravation is utterly, utterly pathetic!

Going by this strategy, Ayesha Jalal’s chances of being elected a Tufts dog-catcher are far brighter!

Re: # 144

Urstry… who should be thankful for living in Pakistan? Are you suggesting that Ahmadis should be thankful for living in Pakistan? Is that what you are saying? I think that’s a darn good suggestion for them to live there, so Pakistan can win some Nobel prizes.

Urstruly:

``So in other words you are saying that Pakistanis are actually brainwashed fools``

Yes. (haha, j/k) u tempted me too much...

``whereas the truth is that Hindus are their best friends and well wishers and Paki Muslims should not consider them as a threat.? ``

Not at all.

Satyamvada`s statement had nothing to do with Indians. The point is that you can use Hindus / India in two ways, and both ways have only an internal impact on Pakistani society in the way it is defined.

One aspect is to show Partiton as a celebration; an expression of civilizational conflict. This strengthens the Mullah view of Pakistan. Jinnah the Muslim fought for a different nation state of Muslims. Pakistan was made for Islam as Hindus and Muslims cannot coexist. Pakistan therefore should be run on Islamic lines.

Other aspect; the revisionary or Ayesha Jalal perception is that Partition was a tragedy that was brought about by Congress obdurance. Jinnah was secular and wanted Muslims and Hindus to coexist, but was prevented from doing so by Hindus who injected religion into politics. Hence Pakistan is essentially a secular mirror image of India for Muslims (notwithstanding real falws in Indian secularism, I am just trying to illustrate a point)

Anyways, as you can see, the facts are not very different in the two narratives. The difference lies in emphasis; civilizational versus socio-economic. Is Hindusim the villain or is it Gandhi / Nehru? The impact is internal alone; on the very nature of the Pakistani state.

kaalchakra #138: ``Intellectual - Not all lawyers are more intellectual than the rest of us are.``

True. Not all lawyers. In fact, most probably are less intellectual. Lawyers, I read somewhere, have amongst the highest unemployment rates in the USA. No doubt there are some extremely ignorant lawyers. It is a profession that is quite easy to get into. Though quite difficult to excel at. But the ones who are amongst the best in a whole empire, certainly are intellectuals. If they aren`t, then who else is? I think the best darzi in a whole empire, or the best civil engineer in a whole empire etc. is an intellectual......

``Visionary - A visionary has to offer a clear vision, clearly communicated, preferably his own and new.``

A visionary just has to offer a clear vision. He need not clearly communicate it. The later quality is part of being a leader. Jinnah had a clear vision. Perhaps not a perfectly clear one. But clearer than the ones that others had. And South Asia is now trying to return to that.

Did he commuicate it clearly. Hard to say. One would have had to have been there, to evaluate it. My guess is he tried to communicate it, but was up against huge odds.........

``Sophisticated -......By sophisticated intellectual we mean an intellectual with keen analytical powers, one who espouses new and evolved theories, thus promoting greater understanding of our human experience.``

Not really. Sophisticated has nothing to do with understanding human experiences. Sophisticated, according to dictionary.com means, ``Having acquired worldly knowledge or refinement; lacking natural simplicity or naiveté.``

Jinnah was very refined, had a hell of a lot of worldly knowledge, and definitely lacked simplicity and naivete..........And he evolved quite a few new theories about the future of South Asia. More theories than probably anyone else..........

Re: # 147 stuka

Well said...

Re: # 147 stuka

Well said...

Re: # 145 beej
//....like Mantolies (and probably the professor, if what you imply is accurate) is that they have no ground roots – they do not connect with their own people ....//

Now you are getting it.... YLH [and other handful pakis of his ilk] is basically odd man out in the scheme of things in pakistan.... I mean, In land of jihad - these guys are clamoring for secualrism.... that`s as absurd as it gets....

For some reason - they beat up on the old fool gandhi - they think that would further their agenda .... stuka[147] partly explained that odd phenomenon ..... And beating on gandhi works well - because pakis hate gandhi [and all that he stood for] anyway, albeit for different reasons....

Hence we see another bout of verbal diarhea from YLH and his wife ... and you joined the stink party with your own cut&paste deluge.... I don`t know what you were thinking - it`s basically pointless.....

Urstruly,

… minor distinction … I was insulting you … not your religion … (ahem, ahem) …

Was it the comment about you dreaming of white virgins that ticked you off? Or is the roza getting to you already? I know, this being the first day … it can really take its toll on your already diminished mind … not to mention that you are 3-hours more into it than I am ….

Or was it the blue coat comment … which seemed too foolish, even if coming from a mullah? Get this … such ideas have been floated around by your fellow clergymen … but thank god for cricket season, they never got much traction beyond the same lunatic, jihadi fringe …… which means you, your extended family, and your in-laws …

I too have a roza … that is, if I am allowed to use that term …..

BTW, I helped you build that fucking house in the first place ... even as your uncle Maudoodi campaigned against it ... not that it matters to you or your jamaati gundas ........

stuka #147
(from UP)
IMHO the problem is that
1.Ayesha Jalal narrative has too many holes and cannot be translated to real life politics
2. In real life politics both narratives end up at the same logical point, kafirs are enemies of the state.

I think the Jinnah narrative on empowerment is the best. Instead of denying his speeches and statements of 9 years as `bargaining positions`, they must be taken at face value. He was very worried that Muslims were not as political conscious as the Hindus and one day the Muslims would wake up and find that they and their interests and their rights were swamped by the Hindus who were miles ahead on all fronts constituting nationalism. He set a lot of store in providing a Hindu-free benign environment for empowerment of Muslims at their own pace and terms.

Now Pakis have had that Hindu-free environment for years, why the heck aren`t they concentrating on empowerment of their citizens, individually and collectively? (I mean educational, social, economic, political, cultural,etc empowerment ). It isn`t rocket science, I am sure countries with shakier starts have done it. That would be much more in the tune of Jinnah`s intent instead of this whining about Nehru Gandhi US India Israel all of whom can`t empower even a single Pakistani earthworm even all combined.

Stuka,

Your thesis - that not matter how Pakistanis define the phenomenon of partition for themselves has only an internal outcome only - contradicts the facts on the ground. On the contrary the very religious nature of the Pakistan as a nation state is an anti-thesis to the very existence of India even if India becomes an absolutely perfectly a secular state. Since we were joined at hips once - and if we could resolve the territorial issues somehow - the only way for our peaceful co-existence is when one of the two states seize to exist as a separate nation state. Unfortunately, both nation states are at the front lines of the civilizational conflict that has set into motion after cold war and intensified after 9/11. The way I envision the world of the future is that in the next couple of hundered years there will exist only two civilizations on this planet - one civilization will be the confederation of religious sub-civilizations and other will be the confederation of atheist or secular sub-civilizations. Pakistan and India both have chosen their respective destinys and we both know where each stands. Meanwhile, until this process of biforcation of humanity nears completion there will be an aggressive process of ``conversion`` that will take place. This Third World War will be the war of two ideologies: God vs. Un-God.

The situation of any war, when it is going on, is a highly fluid situation and sometimes we come accross highly unpredictable outcomes. For example, along the way Pakistan may turn out to be following a different destiny as it now - a la Turkey way or India might end up a Hindu (or Muslim) state. There are forces in Paksitan and in India that are dragging and ``converting`` in either direction. But I think you do not need to look hard to see that there are only two directions to follow in any case - God or unGod. All other idols have toppled.

Sattar

Yes, we the Muslims, find the Quadiani humour at the expense of our religious ideals very offensive and repulsive. And because of Quadiani intolerance and bigotary towards our ideals we have enacted laws to control this repulsive behavior so that there remains peace in society. Although it seems far fetched at this time but if this intolerant and confrontational behavior continues then things might come to forcing you to wear blue coats. It has happened in history before. Every society has its limits on tolerance.

``Your thesis - that not matter how Pakistanis define the phenomenon of partition for themselves has only an internal outcome only - contradicts the facts on the ground. On the contrary the very religious nature of the Pakistan as a nation state is an anti-thesis to the very existence of India even if India becomes an absolutely perfectly a secular state. Since we were joined at hips once - and if we could resolve the territorial issues somehow -
Urstruly, my point is that the impact will be on the internal condition of the nation state of Pakistan.

The impact on India is simply to deal with the reality of Pakistan; be it one type of state or the other.

The nature of Pakistan is not an anti-thesis to India, regardless of the path Pakistan choses.

This is because India never accepted TNT from the get go, and it is upto Pakistan to define TNT the way it wants to. I think the fundamental contradiction Pakistanis face wrt India is this..``How can India accept Pakistan without accepting TNT``? That question arises simply because Pakistanis view their state as an ideological one, and therefore the ideological question is also existential. In India`s case, there is no ideological unperpinning to Indian nationhood, hence there is no question of existentialism of our own state or other states. We exist simply because we are. We see no reason why other states cannot do the same. Pakistan exists because two countries came into existence, plain and simple.

`` the only way for our peaceful co-existence is when one of the two states seize to exist as a separate nation state.````

This is simply an extension of having an ideological basis for the state. This potentially may have been the case if there was a sizeable population of Hindus in Pakistan. Because the reason for two nation states merging as one would have been communal rather than simply ideological. As things stand, from an existential viewpoint, the reasons that made the Cabinet Mission plan fail still exist. In fact there is a bigger elite in Pakistan and it will gain bothing but lose much in a confederacy with India. Besides, all said and done, India`s socio-cultural identity is much more Hindu thanks to Partiton, and it does not make sense for us to dilute it in such a strong measure.

Re: # 154

Truly… First sort out Shia problem, then concentrate on Qadiyanis. Shias consider Bibi Aisha to be a whore (noozobilla), Qadiyanis don’t. And since when have they been intolerant, and towards who? You are making it all up. They brought you a Nobel Prize, what else do you want? I think as long as you have your head firmly placed inside your Molvi`s ass, you won`t be able to tell who is the real enemy: Shia or Ahmadis.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re#150

The cut and paste “deluge” was to balance this board a bit and to make the point that indeed there are other, overwhelmingly favorable opinions on Gandhiji and his perceptions on the role of women than the outright skewed stuff picked for this article by unscrupulous individuals using a bunch of wikipedia postings!

NOBODY was ever harsher on Gandhiji than Gandhiji himself – NOBODY ever subjected Gandhiji to a more careful scrutiny than Gandhiji himself. Those who are unable to see this simple fact are utterly hopeless creatures – and a lot of the Pakistani “intellectuals” over here appear to fit that category!

Just look at the stuff I posted this morning! If a layman like me can come up with so many articles in just part of one morning, why is it so difficult for this supposed “author” to get her rear into action to have balance?!!! I’ll tell you why!

Because she is not looking for balance. Because she is a dishonest “intellectual” – the worst and the most detestable crime in my book!

Although I (really) did not know the author has marital connections to Manto – I am not privy to this club – that changes little – though perhaps it does explain while Manto is so quick to fire back!

Well author, ma’m, I am sure you fully understand that my earlier reference to ladies of easy virtue (as well as the title for my i-log from today) was figurative – but the conviction behind that accusation was VERY genuine!

Sincerely,
Beej.

PS: And just for the record, anybody who thinks that I am a blind devotee of Gandhiji, let me draw your attention to my first posting on an adjacent board on him:

“Like most men who look taller in retrospect, he was a man belonging to his times – he is well-deserving of respect – yet blindly following every little thing he ever said – after all these years – will not work.

He was admittedly imperfect but continued to grope toward where he considered perfection to lie.

And that is the truth!”

The bottom line ladies and gentlemen,

Despite all the selective attempts to skew the discussion here... with deluge of cut and paste bakwas... the facts remain...


1) Gandhi was against women having a public role.
2) Gandhi was against women working
3) Gandhi was against women`s voting
4) Gandhi was racist against Black people
5) Gandhi was denounced as Hindu Fanatic by Dr Ambedkar