The Hypocrisy of the Indian Leftists

krishna_abcd #112

`` [There are a few groups like Askenazi Jews who do have a higher genetic component for intellectual and business success. ]

So since are you saying that Askenazi Jews are genetically superior to others, you believe in the theory that some races are genetically superior to others.

Hmmm.... How about Brahmins then? Could they also be genetically superior to others? ``

Intelligence is a function of heredity and culture.

Except Jews account for 40% of all Nobel Prizes - they dominate in law, finance, journalism and business in addition to science, engineering and medicine. Of course Israeli Jews proved that they can kick some ass.

I doubt you would find too much genetic differences between Brahmins and non-Brahmins. Ignoring the ocassional specimen like you I will give Tamil Brahmins credit for being forward looking and progressive. They have adapted from putting down lower castes to co-existing and prospering with them.

No jang mian...

Forget that the expanding electorate repeatedly elected Jinnah... be it as a Congress candidate or an ML one.

Forget that the Congress used the same electorate as proof of its representative capacity..

Forget that that all presidents of the US right up till Woodrow Wilson were elected by a narrower electorate than that which existed in India at the time...


All I am objecting to is that according to Harimau ... some third rate knighted Musalman like Sir Sultan Muhammad Khan who was never elected to anything... is some how more representative than someone like Jinnah ... whose party won 87% of the Muslim electorate in 1946...


Even Gandhi was more honest than the blood clot here... Gandhi signed this statement after the elections of 1946:

``The Congress does not challenge but accepts that the Muslim League now is the authoritative representative of an overwhelming majority of the Muslims of India. As such and in accordance with democratic principles they alone have today an unquestionable right to represent the Muslims of India. ``


Meanwhile... Harimau sounds increasingly like a supporter of General Musharraf... according to Musharrafites... Benazir and Nawaz Sharif are not representative politicians... why? Because according to them the turnout in 2002 elections (ironically by the virtue of which Musharraf`s government stands and which is the basis of the controversial constitutional amendments like the two offices bills etc) was less than 30%. Harimau`s claim is on similar lines...

Re: # 136

So are you now claiming that a Madrasi Brahmin designed colour picture tubes for TV? Did he get the Nobel prize? How come no one has heard of him?

Is there no limit to your bigotry and hatred against the lower castes????

abey manto, we all agree that jinnah was THE star of the debating society AKA INC pre-gandhi .. before congress became a mass-movement.

From Brittanica...

``In 1910 some 135 elected Indian representatives took their seats as members of legislative councils throughout British India. The act of 1909 also increased the maximum additional membership of the Supreme Council from 16 (to which it had been raised by the Councils Act of 1892) to 60. In the provincial councils of Bombay, Bengal, and Madras, which had been created in 1861, the permissible total membership had been raised to 20 by the act of 1892, and this was increased in 1909 to 50, a majority of whom were to be nonofficials; the number of council members in other provinces was similarly increased.``

More information...

``Most ironic was his very first election in 1910, where Congressman Jinnah, who was to one day lead Muslim League to hilt against the Congress, defeated the Muslim Leaguer Rafiuddin Ahmad from Bombay to successfully enter into the legislative council.``


Just because the council had a large number unelected raj loyalists as appointees didn`t mean that everyone was one of them.

Also... the reason why Jinnah became a member of the Muslim League in 1913 ... and not earlier was precisely because till 1913 League was loyal to British rule... where as Jinnah had been fighting for self rule.

I am still surprised that what kind of warped mind believes that while Jinnah who was elected as Congress representative to the Council in 1910, 1912, 1914, 1916, 1918... and as an independent in 1924 and 1926... and a Muslim Leaguer 1934, 1937 and 1946 ... and whose Party won an unprecedented 87% of the Muslim electorate in the same election that supposedly confirmed Congress` representative status... is somehow not representative...

But loyalists, nawabs, mullahs, sirs, convenors of ``Majlis` and sectarian bodies who never won a single election are some how representative accordng to you.


Either you are a complete idiot... or you are vicious little freak. My vote is for the latter.

PS: It is one thing to disagree with someone... it is quite another to make inane arguments that don`t make any sense...

Harimau,

1. Oh so you actually think Jinnah was elected only in 1910? Jinnah was not just there in 1910... but was elected again and again... The elections didn`t happen in 1910 alone... the electorate was continuously expanded afterwards... The issue was not of Islamic law etc... (unless you are completely stupid I don`t see how you can argue that) ...

2. You think Jinnah was only elected on Congress Platform.... Just go and check how many elections he won and on what platform.

3. What electorate (universal adult franchise) makes someone the vice chancelor, acting governor under the British, spokesman of the Bohri Majlis, Minister of govt. of Nizam Hyderabad flana and dhamkana... that you`ve quoted yourself ? These people were representative Muslims according to you, even though the Muslims never voted for them.... Meanwhile you are abusing Jinnah who was in the history of the subcontinent the one man who had the most representative capacity vis a vis Muslims...


Here is an article I wrote on his legislative contributions to your country ... read and grow up.


As we celebrate M.A. Jinnah’s birth anniversay today, December 25, it behoves us to think deep and hard on his true legacy (also see earlier Jinnah-related ATP Posts: The Other Side of Mr. Jinnah; Watch Jinnah-The Movie; 1947 Video-1; 1947 Video-2; Aazadi Mubarak; Independence Day Greetings for India; Remembering 9.11.1948).

Those who criticize the current government for passing the Women’s Protection Bill would do well to remind themselves of the long and extremely effective legislative career of Pakistan’s founding father, Mr. Mahomed Ali Jinnah, as a member of the central legislative assembly of India.

Indeed the greatest tragedy of the subcontinent is that both India and Pakistan have chosen to selectively remember this great man, especially by choosing to ignore his politics prior to the Pakistan Movement. However if both India and Pakistan were to revisit Jinnah’s pre-1937 Indian nationalist career, we would find much to celebrate together, even if we continue to differ on his later role as the champion of Muslim separatism.

Jinnah’s legislative career spanned over close to four decades, out of which 37 years were spent serving the cause of India’s progress. Most ironic was his very first election in 1910, where Congressman Jinnah, who was to one day lead Muslim League to hilt against the Congress, defeated the Muslim Leaguer Rafiuddin Ahmad from Bombay to successfully enter into the legislative council. Who could imagine then that this young Congressman barrister would one day end up becoming Muslim League’s most famous leader.

Barely a month into the assembly, he took on Lord Minto by denouncing the “cruel and harsh treatment that is meted out to the Indians in Natal” in support of Mohandas Gandhi, who too was to become his principal foe in the future. When Lord Minto reprimanded him for using “harsh language”, he replied, “Well my Lord, I should feel inclined to use much harsher language.”

In 1912, Jinnah alienated many of his Muslim supporters by giving his wholehearted support to the Special Marriage Amendment Bill, which sought to provide mixed religion marriages legal protection. He argued that the bill would provide equality but he was opposed by many members on the grounds that the bill contravened the Koran. Undaunted Jinnah asked the law member who had opposed the bill if he “would deny that there is a certain class of educated and enlightened people who rightly think that a gravest injustice is done to them as long as liberty of conscience is held from them”.

Rubbishing the idea that Muslim sensibilities would be hurt, he asked: “Is this the first time in the history of legislation in this country that this Council has been called upon to override Musalman Law or modify it to suit the time? The Council has over ridden and modified the Musalman law in many respects.” It was the same year that he stood up to argue that universal elementary education ought to be “compulsory”. He declared unfettered by any opposition religious or otherwise:

“In no country has elementary education become universal without compulsion. Find the money; if necessary tax the people. But I shall be told that people are already taxed. I shall be told that we shall face great unpopularity… My answer is that we should do all this to improve the masses of this country to whom you owe a much greater duty than anyone else. My answer is that you should remove the reproach that is leveled against the British rule, that is, the neglect of elementary education. My answer is that it is the duty of every civilised government to educate masses, and if you have to face unpopularity, if you have to face certain amount of danger, face it boldly in the name of duty.”

Later defining self government, he spoke of a government for the people and by the people unfettered and unconditionally. Here too Jinnah was at his best, a secular liberal politician who fought for what he believed in. While he opposed forces of religious reaction and espoused the cause of freedom, he did not turn his back to the legitimate demands of his community and this manifested itself in form of the Wakf Bill, which was his great legislative triumph for the Muslims. But if the Muslims thought Jinnah had changed his ways, they were sorely mistaken when he supported the Child Marriages Restraint Bill which outlawed marriages of girls below the age of 16. When questioned, Jinnah declared that religion had nothing to do with it, but that this was a question of common sense.

At other times, he pushed forward an agenda that sought to drive the British into a corner. In February 1924, he introduced a legislation that called for the Government of India to buy its stores through “Rupee tenders” instead of Pound sterling which had proved costly for India and had blatantly favored the British. In introducing this measure, he recounted 75 different British imperial purchases that had inhibited India’s economic development. His resolution passed and has been held by many historians as the single most important event in India’s pre-partition history that had stimulated indigenous Economic growth and development. Opposing a British move to introduce passports as a necessary pre-condition to enter India, Jinnah declared that “all regulations that impose passports are the biggest nuisance and the sooner they are done away with the better.”

Speaking against the deportation of Bombay Chronicle Editor, B. G. Horniman he declared:

“I do maintain, and I have drunk deep at the fountain of constitutional law, that the liberty of a man is dearest thing in the law of any constitution and it should not be taken away in this fashion.”

On Indian soldiers fighting British wars, Jinnah and Gandhi clashed publicly. Gandhi wanted to use Home Rule League to recruit soldiers for the British Empire, something which Jinnah found abhorrent and opposed. Jinnah believed that as long as Indians were not allowed to become officers or India remained in subjection, they could not be asked to fight for the empire. Jinnah said:

“We cannot ask young men to fight for principles, the application of which is denied to their own country. A subject race cannot fight for others with the heart and energy that a free race can fight with for the freedom of itself and others. If India has to make great sacrifices in the defence of the Empire, it must be as a partner in the Empire and not as its dependency. Let her feel that she is fighting for her own freedom as well as the freedom of a commonwealth of free nations under the British crown and then she will strain to stand by England to the last.”

Jinnah’s legislative career prior to his taking up the Muslim separatist case was marked by secular Indian nationalism and his desire to see India as a great and free nation of the world, inspired by constitutionalism and democracy. Jinnah stood for universal education, women’s rights, equality of Indians irrespective of religion, caste, creed or gender and against obscurantism of all forms. It is this part of his career that can not only help to bridge the gap of distrust between Pakistan and India, but can also inspire liberals in the nation that he founded to work for a modern, democratic and pluralistic Pakistan in line with Jinnah’s ideas of constitutionalism and democracy.

I made a sweeping comment abt Sindhis that they are all fraudsters. Like all groups they are also a mix of good & bad people. Some prominent public figures among Sindhis I admire are:

Govind Nihalani,
Sunil Khilnani,
Ram Jethmalani.


Hope Einsteinwallah wud be happier now. Sorry man, if my comment had hurt u.

Ref masanamuthu #118

[Mr. abcd,

You said this

``..There`s an interesting book on this topic - Guns, Germs and Steel - that won the Pulitzer prize - that attempts to answer questions about why some societies have succeeded better than others. ``

I quoted this from the book,

``There is an explicit statement in page 250, `` Religions vary greatly in their relation to technological innovation: some branches of Judaism and Christianity are claimed to be especially compatible with it, while some branches of Islam, Hinduism and Brahmanism may be especially incompatible with it.``

The book that you asked us to read said stuff explicitly about the incompatibility of Brahminism with technological innovation.. When you said that ``the interesting book talks about why some societies have succeeded better than others``, you failed to realise that there is another damning ``explicit`` statement in the book that ridicules ``Brahminism``..]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism:

{Ancient India

The earliest traces of a counter-intuitive idea that it is the Earth that is actually moving and the Sun that is at the centre of the solar system (hence the concept of heliocentrism) is found in several Vedic Sanskrit texts written in ancient India.[1][2] Yajnavalkya (c. 9th–8th century BC) recognized that the Earth is spherical and believed that the Sun was ``the centre of the spheres`` as described in the Vedas at the time. In his astronomical text Shatapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10), he states:

``The sun strings these worlds - the earth, the planets, the atmosphere - to himself on a thread.``[3]

He recognized that the Sun was much larger than the Earth, which would have influenced this early heliocentric concept. He also accurately measured the relative distances of the Sun and the Moon from the Earth as 108 times the diameters of these heavenly bodies, close to the modern measurements of 107.6 for the Sun and 110.6 for the Moon. He also described an accurate solar calendar in the Shatapatha Brahmana.[4]

The Aitareya Brahmana (2.7) (c. 9th–8th century BC) also states:

``The Sun never sets nor rises. When people think the sun is setting, it is not so; they are mistaken. It only changes about after reaching the end of the day and makes night below and day to what is on the other side.``[2][5]

Some interpret this to mean that the Sun is stationary, hence the Earth is moving around it,[2] though others are less clear about the meanings of the terms.[5] This would be elaborated in a later commentary Vishnu Purana (2.8) (c. 1st century BC), which states:

``The sun is stationed for all time, in the middle of the day. [...] Of the sun, which is always in one and the same place, there is neither setting nor rising.``[6] }

{Medieval India

The Indian astronomer-mathematician Aryabhata (476–550), in his magnum opus Aryabhatiya, propounded a heliocentric model in which the Earth was taken to be spinning on its axis and the periods of the planets were given with respect to a stationary Sun. He was also the first to discover that the light from the Moon and the planets was reflected from the Sun, and that the planets follow an elliptical orbit around the Sun, and thus propounded an eccentric elliptical model of the planets, on which he accurately calculated many astronomical constants, such as the times of the solar and lunar eclipses, and the instantaneous motion of the Moon (expressed as a differential equation).[1][4][7][8]

Bhaskara (1114–1185) expanded on Aryabhata`s heliocentric model in his astronomical treatise Siddhanta-Shiromani, where he mentioned the law of gravity, discovered that the planets don`t orbit the Sun at a uniform velocity, and accurately calculated many astronomical constants based on this model, such as the solar and lunar eclipses, and the velocities and instantaneous motions of the planets.[4] Arabic translations of Aryabhata`s Aryabhatiya were available from the 8th century, while Latin translations were available from the 13th century, before Copernicus had written De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, so it is possible that Aryabhata`s work had an influence on Copernicus` ideas.}

Compare that to Christianity.

{Religious disputes over heliocentrism

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Chronicles 16:30 state that ``the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved.`` Psalm 104:5 says, ``[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.`` Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that ``the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.``

Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine`s position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. The writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set. In fact, it is the earth`s rotation which gives the impression of the sun in motion across the sky.

As early as the time of Aristarchus, the heliocentric idea was denounced as being against religion in Europe. The issue did not assume any importance, however, for nearly 2,000 years.

Nicolaus Copernicus published the definitive statement of his system in De Revolutionibus in 1543. Copernicus began to write it in 1506 and finished it in 1530, but did not publish it until the year of his death. Although he was in good standing with the Church and had dedicated the book to Pope Paul III, the published form contained an unsigned preface by Osiander stating that the system was a pure mathematical device and was not supposed to represent reality. Possibly because of that preface, the work of Copernicus inspired very little debate on whether it might be heretical during the next 60 years.

There was an early suggestion among Dominicans that the teaching should be banned, but nothing came of it at the time. Some Protestants, however, voiced strong opinions during the 16th century. Martin Luther once said:

``There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.``

Over time, however, the Catholic Church began to become more adamant about protecting the geocentric view. Pope Urban VIII, who had approved the idea of Galileo`s publishing a work on the two theories of the world, became hostile to Galileo. Over time, the Catholic Church became the primary opposition to the Heliocentric view.

The favored system had been that of Ptolemy, in which the Earth was the center of the universe and all celestial bodies orbited it. A geocentric compromise was available in the Tychonic system, in which the Sun orbited the Earth, while the planets orbited the Sun as in the Copernican model. The Jesuit astronomers in Rome were at first unreceptive to Tycho`s system; the most prominent, Clavius, commented that Tycho was ``confusing all of astronomy, because he wants to have Mars lower than the Sun.`` (Fantoli, 2003, p. 109) But as the controversy progressed and the Church took a harder line toward Copernican ideas after 1616, the Jesuits moved toward Tycho`s teachings; after 1633, the use of this system was almost mandatory. For advancing heliocentric theory Galileo was put under house arrest for the last several years of his life.}

Yep, 2500 years after the Shatapatha Brahmana of Yajnavalkya, the Catholic Church still refused to accept the heliocentric theory.

Yajnavalkya, Aryabhatta and Bhaskara were most certainly NOT one of you SC/ST/BC/MBC/OBC momofukus.

Ref okhla99 #80

[HOWEVER, dear intelligent Harimau,
the primary colours are Red, BLUE & Yellow as any SC/ST/OBC child will tell you.]

Only a SC/ST/BC/OBC/MBC child or adult of any age will claim Red, Blue and YELLOW to be the primary colors.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_colors:

{The additive primaries are red, green, and blue.}

I challenge you or any of the SC/ST/BC/OBC/MBC momofukus to design a color TV picture tube with red, green and yellow phosphors. That fraud Soyamotherf@$*ingsauce has slinked away with his tail between his legs when confronted with this issue but you seem to be braver than him.

Ref masanamuthu #76

[ROFL.. our (BC/MBC/SC/ST) records have been lost too.. we invented the whole concept of mathematics and our records are lost in oral translation..

.........

you are just throwing a few names in a list of thousands over thousands of years.]

Since you are incapable of even Googling for information, here is something for you. From http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Projects/Pearce/Chapters/Ch7.html:

{There is wide ranging debate as to when the decimal place value system was developed, but there is significant evidence that an early system was in use by the inhabitants of the Indus valley by 3000 BC. Excavations at both Harappa and Mohenjo Daro have supported this theory. At this time however a `complete` place value system had not yet been developed and along with symbols for the numbers one through nine, there were also symbols for 10, 20, 100 and so on.

The formation of the numeral forms as we know them now has taken several thousand years, and for quite some time in India there were several different forms. These included Kharosthi and Brahmi numerals, the latter were refined into the Gwalior numerals, which are notably similar to those in use today (see Figure 7.1). Study of the Brahmi numerals has also lent weight to claims that decimal numeration was in use by the Indus civilisation as correlations have been noted between the Indus and Brahmi scripts.

It is uncertain how much longer it took for zero to be invented but there is little doubt that such a symbol was in existence by 500 BC, if not in widespread use. Evidence can be found in the work of the famous Indian grammarian Panini (5th or 6th century BC) and later the work of Pingala a scholar who wrote a work, Chhandas-Sutra (c. 200 BC). The first documented evidence of the use of zero for mathematical purposes is not until around 2nd century AD (in the Bakhshali manuscript). The first recorded `non-mathematical` use of zero dates even later, around 680 AD, the number 605 was found on a Khmer inscription in Cambodia. Despite this it seems certain that a symbol was in use prior to that time. B Datta and A Singh discuss the likelihood that the decimal place value system, including zero had been `perfected` by 100 BC or earlier. Although there is no concrete evidence to support their claims, they are established on the very solid basis that new number systems take 800 to 1000 years to become `commonly` used, which the Indian system had done by the 9th century AD.}

By the way, Panini`s grammar of the Sanskrit language was the first and only grammar to describe a language, any language, with mathematical precision. And that led 2,500 years later to the Backus-Naur Form for the formal definition of computer languages. About which you know absolutely nothing.

Panini was NOT an SC/ST/BC/OBC/MBC.

Some more on the decimal system:

{Having become firmly established in academic circles in India by the 6th century, the decimal place value system spread across the world. Initially to China and Alexandria, then to the Arab empire where it became the system of choice of the scholars in Baghdad by the 8th century.

Arabic scholars during this time improved the system by introducing decimal fractions. The system also spread into Spain, as has been previously discussed southern Spain was under Arabic rule into the 12th century. It took much longer for the system to be accepted in mainland Europe, but eventually by the 16th century it was widely used. That said, both prejudice and suspicion continued to be widespread, while orthodoxy also played its part in the continued use of Roman numerals. The last significant case of an attempt to abolish the Indian decimal place value system was in Sweden in the early 18th century.

This is clearly a very brief overview of the phenomenal development of the decimal place value system, without which it is accepted `higher mathematics` would not be possible. It is impossible for me to do justice to its importance in such few words, so I will conclude with a quote from G Halstead who commented:

...The importance of the creation of the zero mark can never be exaggerated. This giving to airy nothing, not merely a local habituation and a name, a picture, a symbol but helpful power, is the characteristic of the Hindu race from whence it sprang. No single mathematical creation has been more potent for the general on go of intelligence and power.}

[Atleast the Ku-Klu-Klan (white supremacists) have a point. All the innovations / inventions that have benefitted the human society were developed by White predominantly Christian men.. But these ``caste supremacists`` have just ``tall claims`` to back them up..]

Refer to that part about {....both prejudice and suspicion continued to be widespread, while orthodoxy also played its part in the continued use of Roman numerals. The last significant case of an attempt to abolish the Indian decimal place value system was in Sweden in the early 18th century.}

And the great White legislators of Indiana attempted to pass a law within the last 150 years declaring the value of Pi to be 3 so that it could be in accordance with the Bible.

You are one brain-dead mofukka.

After claiming that the OBCs are actually aceing the exams and beating the Upper Castes in performance in the University examinations, another great stride in the march of the OBCs has been taken with the ABOLITION of the Common Entrance Test for professional education in Tamil Nadu.

What next? Grant of a BE or MBBS along with a SC/ST/BC/MBC/OBC certificate by the local Tahsildar by-passing the entire university/college system? Oops, that wouldn`t happen since the ``Kazhagak Kanmanigals`` (literally, ``darlings of the party``; this is the term of endearment used to refer to followers of Doctor Artist Leader Chief Minister the Fund of Compassion) run a vast number of professional colleges in Tamil Nadu as a profitable enterprise. Perhaps the SC/ST/BC/MBC/OBC would just pay the tuition at the local college and present the receipt for getting their BE or MBBS.

Ref Mantolives #131

[Mahomed Ali Jinnah was the elected member of the Central Legislature from 1910-1945... i.e. 35 years. The number of years Gandhi was elected as the district sweeper in Bombay : ZERO. Then In 194687% of the Muslim electorate voted for Jinnah and rejected the assorted variety of British Knights and Mullah freaks that you quote above.]

Yasser, dear boy, exactly what was the electorate that elected Jinnahbhai? Was it based on universal adult franchise? Or was Islamic law (and British law) used to exclude women (you know, our wife Ayesha belongs to that particular subspecies) from voting?

As to Jinnah`s election/appointment to the Imperial Legislative Council, here is some info:

[On January 25, 1910, Jinnah became a member on the sixty-member Imperial Legislative Council. The council had no real power or authority, and included a large number of un-elected pro-Raj loyalists and Europeans.]

Looks like the Imperial Legislative Council was a club where Jinnah-bhai could enjoy a whiskey-and-soda and smoke his cigar while being pally-pally with the @rse-lickers of the British Crown.

Also, Jinnah-bhai was a member of the Indian National Congress at that time and became a member of the Muslim League only in 1913.

[I wish however that Jinnah had sought election as a dog catcher instead. That way he would have dealt with Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi much better...]

Jinnah-bhai was a failure in everything he did.... except in chasing ambulances. So don`t pin your hopes on him. Look at that abortion of a nation called Pakistan.... hey, THAT is a great title for a movie about Pakistan, don`t you think?

In #129 Haramimau writes :
<<< And that is far more important than water for the farmers of the Cauvery delta or Real Social Justice. >>>


HA HA HA!!!!!!! Haramimau talks of social justice. LOL !!! LOL!!! ROFL!!!!!

The same Haramimau who had earlier (refer #23) said

<<< Harimau skewers the lower castes like you guys might skewer meat for sheesh-kebabs.

Harimau walks tall, knowing full well that just by birth alone he is superior to 95% of Indians and 100% of non-Indians. That kind of self-confidence is not easy to come by.

Harimau pities mlecchas like you who have the misfortune to be born into a strange cult and who can have no exit strategy short of death. In fact, he pities mlecchas more than he pities the lower castes who at least have reservations going for them.

When I go to a roadside temple near my home for a special puja, I deliberately wear a dhoti but no upper garments. You should see what happens: the sight of the sacred thread around my torso parts the crowd who stand a respectful foot away from me so that I won`t be defiled by their touch. This in the city of Chennai after 75 years of anti-Brahmin propaganda. Hey, I like that.

The Communist minister Chakraborty in West Bengal, defending his attendance at a religious ceremony, said that he is seen as a brahmin first, a Bengali next and a Communist last.

Nope, we don`t squirm. We walk with our heads held high. Squirming is for low-lifes, such as worms on a hook. >>>


Harimau appears to continuously shift stands.

How much more hypocrisy can this idot display ????

Harimau,

What about the hypocrisy of dishonest crooks like yourself? Who is going to write an article about that.... Why is it that you always end up claiming something that blows up in your face?

Some how I missed your gem on my board:

{#339 by harimau on April 8, 2007 7:09am PT
Ref ballukhan #322

You appended a long letter with the following signatures:

[Dr. Zakir Hussain
(Vice Chancellor Aligarh University)
Sir Sultan Ahmed
(Former Member of Governor General`s Executive Council)
Sir Mohd. Ahmed Syed Khan
(Nawab of Chhatari, former acting
Governor of United Provinces and
Prime Minister of Hyderabad)
Sir Mohd. Usman
(Former member of Governor
General`s Executive council and
acting Governor of Madras)
Sir Iqbal Ahmed
(Former Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court)
Sir Fazal Rahimtoola
(Former Sheriff of Bombay)
Maulana Hafz-ur-Rehman M.P.
Col. B.H. Zaidi M.P.
Nawab Zain Yar Jung
(Minister Gcvernment of Hyderabad)
A.K. Kawaja
(Former President of Muslim Majlis)
T.M. Zarif
(General Secretary West Bengal Bohra Community)]

If Jinnahbhai had signed any letter, he would have had to say:

Mohammad Ali Jinnah
Unable to be elected Dogcatcher in Bombay Municipal Corporation
[Reply to interact #339] }}


Mahomed Ali Jinnah was the elected member of the Central Legislature from 1910-1945... i.e. 35 years. The number of years Gandhi was elected as the district sweeper in Bombay : ZERO. Then In 194687% of the Muslim electorate voted for Jinnah and rejected the assorted variety of British Knights and Mullah freaks that you quote above.

I wish however that Jinnah had sought election as a dog catcher instead. That way he would have dealt with Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi much better...