Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango

Now that a few days have passes since my last post (#286) on this article, and having cooled down a bit, I would like to admit that I have used strong words in that post. I am sorry, Farzana, for using those strong words.

As is evident, Farzana never responded to the questions I brought up a couple of interacts ago – except indirectly through an i-log dated June 30, 2005, entitled “Mere ghar ka darwaaza koi nahin hai...”. The following are excerpted from there. Her portions are enclosed within brackets. The rest are my comments on those excerpts.

[Every couple of months or so, there is an attempt made here to ‘expose’ me. How can anyone expose someone who bares herself, whose headlines and blurbs leave no room for any confusion, who has, despite being hauled up for stating certain things, not turned to spineless jelly although that would be so very convenient?]
Ma’m, its true that you have written and continue to write a lot. Thank God for that blessing. And obviously you are anything but spineless – when did ANYBODY say that? However, it IS possible for relative newcomers to remain unfamiliar with some of your older articles and opinions. It’s time-consuming enough for many people just to keep pace with what’s coming from you and others NOW. Besides, many older articles (especially the Civic Center variety) deal with contemporary political topics of their times and there is little reason or interest on the part of some people (like me) in THOSE types. And yes, not every Chowk reader knows an equal amount of information about your own history, etc. There is just no way someone like me would understand your personal sacrifices, travails, etc. (to the same extent as somebody like, let’s say for discussion – “temporal” who has had a longer-term presence) unless they can go back and can read every little post of yours and connect all the dots – somewhat impractical for most people.

[And yet I do not want to be called “spunky”…that is eminently suitable for sophomores, the receivers of such ‘compliments’ and the givers too.]
Those who understand the context of this statement would immediately realize that this statement is eminently unfair – especially with respect to the “receivers”.

[I merely have an opinion (it is never projected as a judgment writ in stone). Others are free (and often wantonly misuse such freedom) to express theirs.]
Considering how little your “opinion” on the plight of Kashmiri Pandits has changed over so many years, I think I could be forgiven for thinking that indeed it WAS a “judgment writ in stone”. Also, I believe you have the same access to resources for expressing YOUR opinions this time around, but have CHOSEN not to use them.

[Later, another person “demands” to know if it is true! I post it myself, I expose myself…and then the person wonders whether I have something to hide]
I guess the “another person” refers to me. I appreciate the fact that you posted that letter from Asian Age – a paper I do NOT read. If you take a minute to go back to my interact #269, I never said that you HAD something to hide – only that THIS discussion should not be hidden by putting it on outdated and deeply-buried pages, unless you want to create the ``hiding`` impression.

[…for god’s sake, the newspaper is an open forum, people do read it…and the fact is that for three days running there were letters responding to me. To a letter, not a column or an article. ]
I’m sorry to say Ma’m, not everybody reads everything (surprise, surprise!) and indeed it’s possible for people to be “absent” (due to travel, etc.) and miss out. I have even known some AUTHORS to do that, even some good ones!

[We have been through this so often…create a demon out of me to come out smelling of roses yourself.]
Ma’m why would I try to create a demon out of you? Did the possibility occur to you that my questions may actually be well-intentioned? As far as the “smelling of roses” is concerned, I KNOW that I stink in most interacts – are you happy now?

[No one remembers what I had to say about the Quran desecration, about Indian POWs in Pakistan…well, if someone can go and post on the page, they obviously know what I have written.]
Although you may react based on your own experiences which may (as I am now finding out) have been bitter, is it not possible that not everything is about “making a demon out of you”? If you indeed YOURSELF go and look at those two spaces that you mention, it may become apparent that at least THIS interactor never made it to them.

[Would Sri Ravi Shankar be called a jihadi? Would it be said he is letting down Kashmir Pandits by hobnobbing with a militant?]
I certainly never said any such thing about him or you, but I did point out that not responding can make you more open to such charges (the “no show” outcome)!

[In my earlier piece when I wrote in my post “This piece is not about Jinnah”, I was told it was a cop-out. The whole article discussed the RSS-BJP link; I wanted people to stop discussing Jinnah, as hero or villain. My views on Jinnah are already there in an article. Nothing hidden. ]
I do believe that Jinnah is a legitimate topic for this forum, since the controversy started with Advani expressing his opinions on the man. As I pointed out in #155, it’s interesting to compare Jinnah and Advani side by side and see the analogy, yet you seem to come to different conclusions with respect to each. This reason of this inconsistency is indeed “hidden” from me, so it’s legitimate for me to ask.

[And then there are people who tell you what you should find funny, what you should think, how you should feel…few go beyond the obvious. So, when I ask questions (with utmost propriety) about the lady writing about the darzi and the shoewalla, I find myself being baited on that board.]
Ma’m you are well aware that the article you refer to was a humor piece and most of the responses (including those that responded to your interact) were done in humor! Isn’t it okay for people to be FUNNY once in a while – even on a humor piece?

[For me it is more important to raise these points out in the open than to wonder about multiple nicks and fight such ‘imaginary demons’…we do not know who most are, so I don’t exercise my mind, though others have their point of view; I let them be, wish they’d leave me be too… I stood my ground where it mattered to me – where I could be seen.]
Ma’m you are very well aware that it’s not possible or practical for every one to use their actual names and that’s why MOST people on this site do use nicks – some perhaps several. I have no problem with multiple nicks as long as these are not used in a dishonest manner by purporting to carry out a conversation with each other. I have NEVER accused you of doing that! And yes, I believe that you DO have more credibility in my eyes because indeed you do stand your ground.

[I am just glad that I do not see Chowk as a playground, or a place to network, or a friendship circle, or a boxing ring…and most certainly not a place to find a soulmate. Yes, for me it is always in the singular.]
Every one has a soul! People who may identify with some of your thoughts and feel an empathy with your soul based on them are not always looking to be a “mate”. Why does it have to be about being one? And you may be right in what you say about playground, network, friendship circle, or boxing ring; however, I am reasonably sure that if one were to dig through some of your responses, they can prove you wrong on ALL of these, especially the last one.

[I just don’t have the ‘talent’ to multitask, or the energy.]
Somehow, I felt that you did NOT believe in reductionism.

[I am happy with the feeble and sometimes febrile connections I might make with a few words.]
Your words do carry a lot of power, ma’m!

[My silences are my own. They are much too precious for public consumption!]
I am unsure if this refers to this article or not. If it does, then I would like to point out that when a question is asked and you chose not to answer it, you essentially let the other side’s point of view stand, except in the eyes of those who already know your track record and history in detail over the longer term and choose to look away from some of the inconsistencies they might think themselves. When they do so, aren’t they being patronizing, and are you comfortable with such patronizaing?

Again, I am sorry about my “janitorial” words. You and other interactors who have watched me over the past few months ought to be able to easily figure out for yourself whether a real “punch” was intended or not. Now, PLEASE stop pretending to reel from them! Thanks.

tahmed32:

``and narrow mindset of the Indian leaders (other than Jinnah,...)

tahmed saheb, I think that this is the upteenth time that you have found it necessary to qualify Jinnah as an exemption. As I said earlier, in the interest of truthful reporting, you should add Sarvarkar and RSS to Jinnah because that was the ``illustrious`` company in which Jinnah found himself at that time.

Mahrana #285 Kindly do not twist everything to suit your imagination. When I said you have a slavish mentality, I said that because you were following the widespread - and as I have explained, totally emotional and ill-informed views in India that the Japanese pawn bose was a hero simply because he was against the brits (regardless of the obvious facts) and that the Quit India movement was anything more than another monument to the parochial and narrow mindset of the Indian leaders (other than Jinnah, and in vast contrast to other world leaders including Asian leaders of the time like Mao Tse Tung and Ho Chi Minh and Soekarno who fought the Japanese tooth and nail rather than being fooled by Japanese and Nazi patronizing of Bose and their sweet talk about freeing Asia from europeans).

If you were to base your views on facts and common sense - in which case you would have had no option other than to agree to thethen I would not have said that you have a slavish mentality.

#270, #272, #276
Anil, Kaal, and Dr. LokRaj.

Thanks for being honest and courageous enough to provide me a response. I really appreciate it. It also helps me identify the few who are NOT members of the herd (or perhaps to put it in more janitorial terms, the male harem)!

I suppose I had been laboring under a certain illusion while (as happens in many detective stories) the truth was right there, staring me in the face all the time! A real eye-opener, this one!

I’ll do my level best to undo the damage that this crowd is so intent on inflicting on innocents – the REAL underdogs! In my view at this time, there are precious few of those poor creatures to be found in this virtual den of Islamist wolves (of all nationalities) who whore their better nature to their religious passions, while coming up with all kinds of euphemisms to cover it up! Well, they look VERY naked to me at this point!

And Anil, I don’t buy your statement that it is “courageous” to side with the devil, all it means that one is either an idiot (which I seriously doubt) or devil incarnate.

Jesus Christ, what a siren! And what a waste of such raw, raw talent! This is one moment I feel glad that the clock IS ticking!

Note: the above are MY personal views and I take full responsibility for them. Those who disagree are welcome to jump into a lake!

Tahmed # 277,

Surprising that people who do not support british are called slaves and the others freedom fighters. Thats the excuse slaves give to justify their boot licking actions every day.

I can understand the logic of pakistani population very well now.

Adios

Tahmed # 277,

Surprising that people who do not support british are called slaves and the others freedom fighters. Thats the excuse slaves give to justify their boot licking actions every day.

I can understand the logic of pakistani population very well now.

Adios

My take at this Pakistani mafiaso-

I would ask all those Indians who have been threatened by this Paki mafiaso to pool in their expected payoff money and give it to some ex-armymen to raise a squad of assasins to exterminate this mafiaso pest from Pakistan-

even if a group of 6-7 Indians could come together and pool in 10 lacs each all that would be sufficient to raise a group of vigilante to exterminate Dawood right in his own pureland............................

Dost-mittar,

“The need of the hour was to treat all religions equally, instead he treated Hindus and Muslims differently in matters of personal law and management of their places of worship and educational institutions.”

I kind of agree with you but I have my own perspective on what Nehru did.

Even before the partition, Congress relied on the most regressive elements of the Muslims community for support. It neglected the educated Muslims who, though less in numbers, were becoming the most vocal group of Muslim community. Muslim League played right for them. The Pakistan’s support mainly came for the educated middle class in UP and Bihar or even in Bengal and all mullah were against it. People, who left India after the partition, were also the most educated Muslims of the minority province.
Nehru and congress’s assessment of the Muslim community was utterly wrong. Muslims were conservative and backwards but they were not about ready to make mullah their leader. Congress continued to rely on the same Mullah’s like Azad and JUI for support after the partition too.

Nehru personally, imo, had a soft corner for Muslims. He had special relations with Muslim Jagirdar families. Nawab Chitari and Raja sahib Mehmoodabad despite their support for Pakistan were also personal friends of Nehru. Nehru never engaged them in the pre-partition politics.
Since Nehru continued to work with Mullahs, he gave in to their regressive politics. He never tried to encourage western educated Muslims to come to the forefront. Imo, Two reasons for that: First Nehru believed that it was his responsibility to provide protection to Muslims after the partition and second he was so much under pressure by Azad and other mullahs that he could not even bring the western educated and somewhat secular Muslims into the Indian politics. He did bring Chaglla as the Kashmir affair minister but that was too late and Chagalla lacked the charisma to take on the leadership mantle.

So I would not blame Nehru entirely on his regressive policies about Muslims. He just continued with pre-partition congress policies and thought that he was helping Muslims in hostile environments after the partition.
Nehru was immensely popular in Muslims in India and especially in UP Muslims. Until date, you will not find Pakistani Mohajir bad mouth Nehru. He fancied himself as the Muslim leader and probably did not think about to bring the western educated Muslims on board after the partition. Nevertheless, he had so many issues after the partition to handle that he missed something right under his nose.

HP:
I have said it before and will say it again. Part of my problem with the Nehru heritage is that I also hold him responsible for the socio-economic backwardness of India`s Muslims and the rise of hindutva.

My years of training as a policy analyst has made me acutely sensitive to the intended and unintended effects of any program or policy. HIndutva practically died with Mahatma Gandhi. There was hardly any sympathiser of the RSS or Savarkar left when an RSS member killed Gandhi and Savarkar was arrested in the murder case. If Nehru had followed sensible policies, the universe would have unfolded quite differently. The need of the hour was to treat all religions equally, instead he treated Hindus and Muslims differently in matters of personal law and management of their places of worship and educational institutions. This created the seeds of a backlash; so when the slogan of pseudo-secularism was raised, the mud stuck. At the same time, Nehru did not do anything to increase the participation of Muslims in places that matter - jobs in police, army and civil service or to support a strong, mobile, multi-religious security force to quell communal trouble wherever it appeared, and it did appear quite regularly during Nehru`s time. Nehru had a soft corner for the likes of Jamiat-ul-ulema and other obscurantists and ignored the advice of progressive Muslims like M.C. Chagla. Thus Deobandis and Madrassas providing education with few job prospects flourished while the common Muslim man and woman was left behind.

#279 that in fact is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

#278 by tahmed32

[What the japs would have been done - assuming they would have treated indians no differently than they treated other countries they occupied - would have been several hundred times worse.]

Enough said.

south asian: I agree that what we did to ourselves (kill half a million innocent people during partition) was bad. What the japs would have been done - assuming they would have treated indians no differently than they treated other countries they occupied - would have been several hundred times worse.

Maharana #266 You write ``People who fought to undermine the british are called freedom fighters. People who support them are called stooges. `` So, what you hear people say is more important than what you would realize if you used a bit of common sense. This is mindset of a slave - a man who cant think for himself, but rather repeats what he hears others say.

Enough said. As you said, ``Adios``.

Re: # 269
BeeJay,
I agree with what Anil has said about the issue of refugee.
Govt. support or no Govt support,the fact remains that Kashmiri Hindus did not leave their homes because of their own free will.The circumstances created in the valley forced them to do so.Even if some of them got assistance,that does not change their status.For how many of them,the state help has been on a countinous basis and how many have gained the same social and financial status which they enjoyed in their home state.
One may have a different view of the role of militants,insurgents and state in creating the circumstances which forced them to leave their homes,but their status of refugees is un-questionable,at least according to my understanding.

It is time a group of NRI pooled in resources to exterminate Dawood and his henchmen from Karachi and Dubai by taking the services of ex-army men...........................................................shame on India for not eliminating this ISI pest for long................................



D-wedding: Love wins over villian ISI
MOHUA CHATTERJEE

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2005 12:14:30 AM ]

Surf `N` Earn -Sign innow

NEW DELHI: For Dawood Ibrahim`s daughter Mahrukh and Javed Miandad`s son Junaid, engaged to be married in Karachi soon, it was like a script out of Bollywood`s potboilers

Re: # 265 Would Japanese have done to us any worse than we did to ourselves in 1947?