PAKISTAN: State faces crisis of purpose

This is an old piece but after the attack on GHQ it is quite a relevant reading. Comments are welcome. Raza Rumi

Oxford Analytica – Wednesday, October 1 2008

SUBJECT: Scenarios for the future of Pakistan.
SIGNIFICANCE: Recent geopolitical developments have undermined the traditional rationale of the state, promoting deepening internal discord. To survive, Pakistan will need to re-cast itself and find a new place in the international order. Yet the three most likely ways forward are each fraught with difficulties.
ANALYSIS: Most of the domestic and geopolitical forces that have held Pakistan together since its hasty creation in 1947 have been weakening rapidly.
As such, the country is at an historic crossroads. Its future in recognisable form will be in serious doubt unless it can find alternative sources of cohesion.

Refugee state. Pakistan was founded at the time of the Partition of India as a homeland for South Asian Muslims fearful that an independent India would represent a Hindu tyranny. It consisted of a series of territories belonging to different ethnic groups — Sindhi, Punjabi, Baluchi, Bengali, Pashtun, Kashmiri — with little in common and many old animosities. Some, especially the Pashtuns and Baluchis, expressed severe reservations about joining the new state. Rapidly, the supposed guests within Pakistan — Mohajir refugees from India — began to turn themselves into the dominant group. Often drawn from elite backgrounds, they quickly took over the bureaucracy, imposing their own tongue (Urdu) as the official language.

Hardly surprisingly, Pakistan has had a restless political history ever since, punctuated by ethnic and sectarian strains and by recurrent military coups. It took eleven years to write the first constitution and another twelve to implement it, whereupon one part of the state — East Pakistan — broke away to form independent Bangladesh.

Making a nation. Nonetheless, a number of forces have served to draw Pakistan together into self-conscious nationhood. The most obvious has been Islam, which represents a common bond tying its peoples together. From the 1950s, Pakistan sought to associate itself with other Muslim nations — helping to found the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and, at one point, even proposing an Islamic ‘Common Market’. The nation represented itself as providing the link between South Asia and the Muslim world.

A second means of consolidation came from the rise of Punjab province to political dominance over the rest of the country. In part, this was achieved through sheer size and wealth. Punjab possesses over 60% of the total population and much of its richest land. More importantly, it arose from the emergence of the military in the late 1950s as Pakistan’s principal institution of state — where, from colonial days, military recruitment was a Punjabi preserve. After General Ayub Khan’s military coup in 1958, the army and Punjab placed themselves at the core of the Pakistan nation.

This was made possible by the continuing importance of a third source of cohesion — opposition to India. The condition of near-civil war which had attended Partition never really died down. India and Pakistan faced each other in long-term confrontation, marked by three ‘hot’ wars and a persistent tradition of proxy war in which each supported internal insurrections inside the other. Pakistan posed itself as India’s ‘other’, constantly on military alert and seeking ‘parity’ in its treatment by the international community. This logic also directed foreign policy.

Conscious of its own weakness in relation to India, Pakistan as early as the 1950s began to seek external support by pursuing a close alliance with the United States. When, from the 1960s, India gravitated towards the Soviet Union, India-Pakistan hostility was cemented into the structures of the Cold War — for a time, moving it to the frontline. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan became the base for US-supported guerrilla resistance, while India supplied much of the civil administration in the Soviet-held zones.

Breaking a nation. However, several developments have in recent years been undermining these sources of cohesion:

  1. Islam role. Pakistan’s Muslim population, although predominantly Sunni, is drawn from a variety of sectarian traditions. The country’s founding father, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was well aware of the implications of such diversity and resisted attempts to convert Pakistan into a confessional state. He favoured plural religious and secular legal traditions, whereby Pakistan would simply be a state where Muslims were free to follow their own religious conscience.Economic and political pressures from the 1970s made this position difficult to sustain. The rise of the Gulf oil economies offered an impoverished Pakistan the opportunity to tap great wealth, but only if it accepted a more fundamentalist brand of Islam. First, Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (1971-77) and then military dictator General Zia ul-Haq (1977-87) sought to ‘Islamise’ the state, the latter especially encouraging madrassas (Islamic schools) to meet previously neglected educational and charitable needs.However, the result has fulfilled Jinnah’s direst prediction. The desire to ‘rule by Islam’ has raised the question ‘whose Islam?’ It has exacerbated sectarian conflicts between Sunni, Shia, Ahmadi and other heterodox groups. Even within Sunni-ism, it has set different madrassas against each other and opened up new lines of social tension. It has also helped move Islam into overt confrontation with other religious principles and with the West. From a source of strength, Islam has become Pakistan’s most divisive factor.
  2. Punjab tradition. Equally, neither the army nor Punjab exerts the same authority that they once did. Zia attempted to Islamise not only the civil state, but also the military. He further conceived plans to turn the army into a more truly national institution by recruiting from outside Punjab. Yet while it still stands as Pakistan’s strongest institution, it now betrays signs of internal disaffection. The operational quasi-autonomy achieved by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency — whether in support of the Taliban in Afghanistan or of liberationist/terrorist organisations in Indian-occupied Kashmir — makes it difficult to determine who actually controls policy coming out of military headquarters in Rawalpindi. Former President Pervez Musharraf certainly sought to restore authority to the central command, but problems of control have re-appeared since his loss of power, most notably in the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul (see US/PAKISTAN: ISI reform is urgent but faces hurdles – August 28, 2008). While yesterday’s appointment of Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha as ISI director general cements Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s control over the military and intelligence apparatus, it remains to be seen whether this will increase the latter’s coherence, or restore lost public respect for it.The weakening of the army’s authority has its counterpart in that of Punjab province. Pressures to federalise the constitution by devolving more power to outer provinces have created a platform for those provinces to ‘gang up’ on Punjab. The problem became clear in the last National Assembly when many development programmes — especially concerning the building of dams — were blocked by concerns that they would benefit principally Punjab.Now, they are manifested in the structure of the newly elected government. Since Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) resigned from the cabinet, the national government led by the Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP) has very limited representation in Punjab, whose own provincial government is in the hands of Sharif’s brother, Shahbaz. The region which was the core of the state of Pakistan now finds itself mainly filling the National Assembly’s opposition benches.
  3. Indian ‘other’. Yet the most serious threat to Pakistan’s cohesion has come from beyond its borders. Pakistan was able to pose as India’s ‘other’ for so long, and to demand parity in international affairs, because India — which is eight times larger — made poor use of its economic potential and refused to engage fully in international affairs, preferring to stand ‘non-aligned’.This position has changed dramatically over the last decade. India now possesses one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. Since the ending of the Cold War, it has asserted itself as an independent nuclear power, fulfilling its potential as regional hegemon and engaging actively in the international community. Pakistan’s inability to compete has become increasingly obvious, and not least to its oldest ally. The United States has switched its favour to India, signing a US-India nuclear agreement which brings international recognition to India’s nuclear industry but not to that of Pakistan (see SOUTH ASIA: Nuclear deal augurs strategic realignment – September 17, 2008). Washington is clearly hoping that India will become its key strategic partner in the region, at the risk of leaving Pakistan out in the cold.

Insecurity state. This raises the question of how a security state is to survive when it cannot secure its country against its greatest enemy, and when its most important ally pursues policies that undermine its authority (see US/INDIA: Delhi benefits as nuclear regime suffers – September 8, 2008). As Pakistan responds to these deepening problems, three broad scenarios are possible:

  1. Liberal democracy. Pakistan could come to accept a secondary status to India in South Asia and settle as a liberal democracy alongside India’s other smaller neighbours. Benazir Bhutto’s PPP, which has a history of opposition to the ‘traditional’ Pakistani state and now holds power under President Asif Ali Zardari, may have been seen to promise such possibilities.However, any such transition will not be easy. To reduce national anxieties about India, it would be necessary for the international community (and especially the United States) to provide Pakistan with cast-iron security guarantees and press India to resolve sensitive issues, most importantly the fate of Kashmir. Despite its mediation role in India-Pakistan conflict, Washington has shown no inclination to go this far, which might in any event alienate its new Indian ally. So long as insecurity against India remains a key factor, the Pakistani military is unlikely to surrender its powers and attendant privileges without a struggle.Also, those powers and privileges are not confined to the military alone. The traditional Pakistani state served to sustain ‘feudal’ relations of landownership and a highly inegalitarian social order. It is difficult to see such a social order surviving the onset of meaningful democracy, but the PPP is as much implicated in it as any other party. Indeed, its leadership is drawn from the Sindhi ‘feudal’ classes and has faced persistent questions about its fiscal probity. When in office, Bhutto may have come into conflict with certain elements of Pakistan’s state tradition, but she also strongly supported others, including the maintenance of the security regime. The transition to democracy, if it ever gets under way, would threaten virtually the entire political class, including that currently represented in the PPP.
  2. China satellite. Alternatively, the military might seek to preserve its dominant position, and escape the squeeze which the India-US nexus is placing upon it, by tilting towards China. During the Cold War, Pakistan began to develop closer relations with China — as a rival of the Soviet Union and tacit ally of the United States — and these have strengthened latterly, not least under Musharraf. China has major investments in Pakistan, including the port of Gwadar facing the Strait of Hormuz, and is contracted to supply weaponry and nuclear power stations (see PAKISTAN: Gwadar port is failing to meet potential – April 25, 2008 and see PAKISTAN/CHINA: Beijing juggles South Asia ties – October 18, 2006). Zardari has even indicated that he is to ask Beijing to sign a nuclear agreement with Islamabad parallel to that between Washington and Delhi.Yet cutting ties with the United States would have serious consequences, especially for Pakistan’s economy, which faces a major crisis. Musharraf’s hopes of reviving the economy proved optimistic. The Pakistan rupee has fallen by 25% against the dollar since January, inflation is running at 30% and both the current account and fiscal deficits have ballooned. China is not noted for generous financial support and, without the support of the (US-led) international community, Pakistan faces imminent bankruptcy.Moreover, the Pakistan military would certainly not like to cut itself off from US largesse. A recent, leaked report from Washington indicates that at least two billion dollars in military aid cannot be accounted for, and that some of Pakistan’s generals show outward signs of having become dollar millionaires. In effect, Pakistan may simply seek to play Washington and Beijing off against each other rather than to move decisively towards the latter — but that could prove a dangerous game.
  3. Hollow state. A third scenario, compatible with parts of the others, is for the state in Pakistan to become hollowed out into a shell, creating space for non-state actors increasingly to pursue their own activities, unhindered by central authority. The Taliban-inspired insurgency in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) now threatens to spill across Pakistan’s entire North-West Frontier Province, essaying an implicit Pashtun ethnic proto-state reaching deep into Afghanistan (see AFGHANISTAN: Insurgency operates at multiple levels – September 30, 2008 and see PAKISTAN: Counter-terror policy is in disarray – September 16, 2008). The Pakistan army is heavily embattled in the region but its chances of decisive military victory are questionable. Its own commanders have in the past shown preference for seeking political settlements with militants, effectively acknowledging the existence of no-go areas outside Islamabad’s writ.Equally, the present triumph of the peripheral provinces against Punjab carries risks. While it may keep Baluchis temporarily at peace with the Pakistani state, their national inclinations are to join with their brethren across the Iranian border to constitute a Baluchi ethnic proto-state. Not long ago, Sindhi aspirations were to push towards union with India. Furthermore, the Mohajirs — who dominate the cities of Karachi and Hyderabad — created their own quasi-autonomous armed urban enclaves as recently as the mid-1990s.

Whither Pakistan? Having lost its traditional rationale in the defence of a Muslim homeland, it is not obvious where the state/nation of Pakistan is to find another. Defending (Western) secularism against Islamist militancy at the expense of its own citizens’ lives provides no answer. However, the emergence of a new national consensus is not easy to see and may, in the end, prove very difficult to reach.

CONCLUSION: India’s inexorable rise and the changing emphasis of US policy in the region leave the state of Pakistan struggling to find a new rationale, and international allies to support it. The process of constructing a new national consensus will certainly be long and painful.

168 Comments

Filed under Pakistan

168 responses to “PAKISTAN: State faces crisis of purpose

  1. Mustafa Shaban

    I agree with some points, but there are a fe wthings to point out:

    1. I know general Zia was very Islamic and stuff but Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was secular as far as I know. He was lenient on many things and that is how Zia came to power, he used this aspect against Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

    2. Also I think we should be united as muslims at the same time we should appreciate our diversity and different sects rather than it being a cause for violence.

    3. Pakistan needs to ally with China due to strong US- India nexus. Pakistan needs to build stronger relationships with foriegn countries rather than just ask for aid.

    4. Pakistan is a strong country, it will not break apart or collapse, hopefully soon it will rise out of its current problems stronger and will have healthy growth once it is settled its problems.

  2. yasserlatifhamdani

    1. ZAB was not secular. And Zia’s coming to power had nothing to do with ZAB’s leniency.

    2. How about being united as Pakistanis?

    3. You know everyone of you Zaid-Hamid types keep speaking on the Kerry Lugar Bill but what about the complete erosion of sovereignty vis a vis China and Saudi Arabia?

    4. So long as people like Zaid Hamid are around, Pakistan will remain a morally, intellectually and socially a weak state.

  3. Bloody Civilian

    …. or purpose faces crisis of state…. soon after inception, only deepening with time, where it has begun to distort purpose.

  4. yasserlatifhamdani

    I have a slightly different view… nation states are products of history… Only people and states looking for a purpose (a measure of self importance) fall short of it.

  5. Mustafa Shaban

    YLH:

    1. Maybe you are right but I do not think ZAB was a fundamentalist either. Zia Ul Haq is the one who came up with fundamentalism.

    2. True, we should be united as Pakistanis, no baloch, punjabi, pathan, only Pakistani. Then we should be united as muslims. Then we should be united as humanity, as we are all part of one consciousness, we are all part of the universe.

    3. Can you please elaborate on how Saudi Arabia and China have violated our soveiregnity?? Well I am not sure they may have done few things here and there but it is probably nothin compared to what the US is doing to Pakistan.

    4. Let me tell you Zaid Hamid is pretty recent, the first of his kind… he is nothin like the fundamentalist or extremists like Taliban or JI. His view is different and he is more of a moderate. So I cannot see your point.

  6. Bloody Civilian

    by ‘purpose’ i meant little more than rule of law and equality before law. those who sabotaged it employed ideology in an attempt to legitimise arbitrary power. now ideology has clouded the minds and original purpose of a people organising itself.

  7. yasserlatifhamdani

    3. US is doing nothing at all compared to what Saudi Arabia and China have been doing. US has entered into a perfectly legitimate sovereign arrangement with Pakistan… Saudi Arabia has trampled upon our sovereignty many times… and I need not even list the blatant and brazen manner in which Saudis have abused our sovereign status… others will I am sure. I just don’t have the time to list down points that are so extensive. Same goes for China. Suffice to say it wasn’t the plight of Pakistani women being abducted by Lal Masjid Ninjas… but Hu Jintao’s phone call that led to the attack on Lal Masjid.

    4. Zaid Hamid has declared many times that a civilian constitutional state based on participatory democracy … even when there is a Muslim majority…is unIslamic. He has often advocated lifetime selection of the Caliph… he has lied about Jinnah and the creation of Pakistan… his vision does not include Non-Muslims… he is an Islamo-fascist worst than Jamaat-e-Islami which atleast talks of constitutional means even if it lies …

  8. bonobashi

    @Mustafa Shaban

    If that Zaid Hamid clown is a moderate, I am the Queen of Siam. You may address me as Your Majesty from this point on.

  9. Majumdar

    Yasser Pai,

    US is doing nothing at all compared to what China has been doing.

    That wud have been OK coming from Chachoo but from you that is a shocker.

    What China has done to Pak is at best on the economic front- a bit of hollowing out of Pak manufacturing. What USA has done to Pak from 1950s onwards is rather more significant. In fact all these Taliboons wudnt have been around had it not been for USA in the first place. Or for that matter military rule.

    Regards

  10. bonobashi

    @Majumdar

    Two points: what happened in the past needs to be left in the past, as otherwise what will be under consideration is not the best interest of Pakistan in future, but the worst emotionally clouded extrapolation of a past dissatisfactory relationship. Pakistan has to consider all matters strictly in tems of future self-interest, not past sentimentality.

    Second, US is better than China for at least the very short run. The challenge is to keep China locked in, without wandering too far, while the maximum use is made of the American alliance.

  11. Tiberius

    Majumdar,

    The Chinese influence is pervasive. Contrary to what is said of Americans, it is the Chinese who go about Pakistan like they own it.

    What US did was actually the opposite of what you say. US did propose to use Islamic sentiment in Afghanistan but it was Pakistan’s sovereign decision to choose Hekmatyar over Ahmed Shah Masood….a decision that continues to bite both Pakistan and the US.

  12. D_a_n

    @Tiberius…

    ‘it was Pakistan’s sovereign decision to choose Hekmatyar over Ahmed Shah Masood’

    Not really. The US and the Saudi’s were fully on board with this for the most part. It was only towards the very fag end that some dissent on this was being expressed…that too was marginal. There was no real interest or plan from the US as to what will happen post soviet withdrawl.

    further more..Hekmatyar enjoyed greater support because he could more men in the field, had a better battle field record with fighters that were thought to be more effective..He had his fans on the yanks side as well.

    The parties concerned were helping to run and fight a war. Not run a charity. The most effective tool at the time was used.

  13. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Don’t know much about the person who manages and writes into this blog.

    But let me tell you- the analysis done here is one of the best, if not the most well written ever on situation of Pakistan.

    Great stuff- keep going.

  14. bonobashi

    Heh.

    Goody, goody gumdrops. Raza and YLH to stage front please, and take a bow.

  15. bonobashi

    @D_a_n

    I know nothing about Tiberius except that he was the person who ferreted out your well-concealed membership of the Freemasons; if it hasn’t been published yet, it will be published soon. And you need not bother denying it, or saying that you don’t even know what the Masons are and what they do, because such denials are standard operating procedure, and are treated by us conspiracy theorists with the contumely they deserve. We know everything.

    On more serious matters, I take your point that at the time of choice, everyone was involved and no one knew what was to follow, but Hekmatyar has turned out to be a terrible choice, if only because his alternative has never had the opportunity, due to tragic circumstance, to do any lasting harm. However, he himself turns out, in the glaring light of hindsight, to have been a tragic choice. His attack on Kabul will make him an international pariah for all time to come, although that seems to be a short interval in Afghan politics. His subsequent battle-field record turned out to be pathetic (I didn’t know until you said so that he was well-considered in the field, as opposed to the organisation and propaganda side, before his selection). And he was the ISI choice in the first place.

    If you wish to put on paper what you must be muttering into your beard about armchair pundits, wise after the event, fire away; I’m staying well under cover till you have quite finished.

  16. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>Second, US is better than China for at least the very short run. The challenge is to keep China locked in, without wandering too far, while the maximum use is made of the American alliance

    For for foreseeable future, Pakistan will become satellite of USA, or China? It has no standing on its own?

    Question is, why will USA/China follow Pakistan’s agenda when India provides much bigger oppurtunity for them?

    Also, India will not remain same during these period, pushing the country further to the right.

    Its sometimes stated, Jinnah did worst to Muslims of sub continent by dividing it 2 nations, now three. Continues hostility towards India bred from religious fundamentalism are doing greatest dis-service to Indian Muslims.

  17. Hossp

    “The process of constructing a new national consensus will certainly be long and painful.”

    I cannot stop laughing when I read the so called analysts, after copy pasting different events from different places with links to some abysmally ridiculous and fallacious reporting, come up with the conclusion that we see above.

    I am not even going to bother to find out what the “new national consensus” would be and what consensus is out there that would take a long and painful time to achieve. Vague statements like these tell us more about how naïve the authors are. I am not even sure this thesis authors have any clue about Pakistan beyond reading some newspaper articles and research by some other ignorant folks.

    The authors have come up with three alternatives or should I say have proposed three national consensus open to Pakistan: Liberal democracy, China satellite, finally the hallowed state.

    The gist of the options is that Pakistan accept the secondary position vis-à-vis India. Now even if Pakistan does accept that position, how in the hell that is going to solve the multiple problems that Pakistan faces now or in the next five to ten years? Obviously a fundamental change in Pakistan’s orientation is not going to happen overnight. Somehow the other the naïve authors of this report have presumed that either Zardari or the US would be able to achieve that.

    There is a tendency in many Western authors that they assume that the US is the most pure-hearted player in the area and has the power to make positive changes. Whether in Pakistan or anywhere else. Well, the recent history does not prove that. What the history does prove is that the US plays the game in far off countries to serve its own national interests and to achieve those interests it works with different local players. In Pakistan its choice for the last sixty has been the Pakistan army. Why would the US destroy its most allied ally in the area?

    The authors come up with another unique plan in their second option, the China option. The authors absolutely have no clue of how the Chinese operate. There is no country in the world that is a China satellite, what does Pakistan has that the Chinese would confer this honor to Pakistan? The authors really are just mouthing an inane option without providing a clue of how the Chinese would accept Pakistan as a satellite state. There is no way the Pakistan army can play China and the US against one another. The Pak army is pretty strong but it just does not have the political muscle to play two powers against each other for its benefit. Things like this can only happen in fairytale and not in real life.

    The last option is even more hilarious, the authors have defined the hallowed state as “A third scenario, compatible with parts of the others, is for the state in Pakistan to become hollowed out into a shell, creating space for non-state actors increasingly to pursue their own activities, unhindered by central authority.”

    This is the height of stupidity. The Pakistani establishment is not willing to accommodate on even small intensity provincial autonomy but the stupid authors believe that the same establishment would allow Pakistan to become a hallowed state ruled by splinter groups such as the Taliban.

    The assumptions of the whole piece, it seems, is that the Pakistan army should destroy itself either for Indian benefit or the Taliban benefit.

    If this is the kind of analysis neophytes from Oxford do then I think Oxford’s future is not very bright.

    Now I am not supporting the Pakistan army but the destruction of the political power of the Pakistan army would come from internal efforts or forced by some external power. I don’t see India or the US capable of doing that in the near future.

    The change in Pakistan would only come from the inside and not outside. The internal forces may get support from some external forces but in the current situation, I don’t see that happening and it would be best for the political forces in Pakistan both military and civilian, to come up with some solution where they can share power in some amicable manner.

  18. Luqmaan

    >Question is, why will USA/China follow
    >Pakistan’s agenda when India provides
    >much bigger oppurtunity for them?

    1. The global cop suddenly find himself unemployed. Is that what you/they want?

    2. Doing business with India would involve give and take (treat on equal terms). US doesn’t need to be that careful with Pakistan.

    When the US tries to sell something, the Indians ask for technology transfer.

    Luq.

  19. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Luq>>When the US tries to sell something, the Indians ask for technology transfer.

    If US does not provide technology, somebody else will do. If you have noticed, India used US to sign initial nuclear deal (though in doldrums now), but the plan is to sign deal with France, Russia and others. I doubt whether even 25% of orders will be going to US companies (large us corporations doing n tech business are cross owned by other countries like japan…).

    Even Pakistan demands tech transfer- I think it was so in some french submarine deal Pak signed .

    Its common these days. nothing special.

  20. Luqmaan

    @Tatha

    If the arms are sold to you as part of military *aid*, are you allowed to ask for the tech transfer in that deal?

    Luq

  21. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>If the arms are sold to you as part of military *aid*, are you allowed to ask for the tech transfer in that deal?

    hmm…that’s a valid point. But guess the people of Pakistan will have to decide whom they choose by their own vote and whether they are protecting their interest.

    Someone once stated- there is no substitute to self-interest of a nation state.

    If majority feels US aid is the way to go and its political leaders are doing great- why complain. If not, chance will come after 5 years to show them their place. Just have patience.

  22. Tathagata Mukherjee

    guess, the moot point is, will continued hostility to india will give pakistan something?

    even a kid will not believe in that. so, why its doing that at this level, so nakedly, so brazenly except those in power to remin in power.

    pak has a civilizational link of 5000 years with india. these sort of hostilities can only make things worse for both countries- being relatively smaller, pak will bear more.

    its a war that is being fought not only between two countries, its armies- but even by people at every mohalla, galli.

  23. bonobashi

    @Tathagata Mukherji


    >>Second, US is better than China for at least the very short run. The challenge is to keep China locked in, without wandering too far, while the maximum use is made of the American alliance>>

    For for foreseeable future, Pakistan will become satellite of USA, or China? It has no standing on its own?

    Question is, why will USA/China follow Pakistan’s agenda when India provides much bigger oppurtunity for them?

    Also, India will not remain same during these period, pushing the country further to the right.

    Its sometimes stated, Jinnah did worst to Muslims of sub continent by dividing it 2 nations, now three. Continues hostility towards India bred from religious fundamentalism are doing greatest dis-service to Indian Muslims.

    I would like your indulgence and that of other readers to reply in detail, though, it is to be hoped, not at any undue length.

    1. There was no implication that Pakistan should become a satellite state of anybody, either the US or China. However, it is pefectly well-known that the bulk of aid, including military aid, to Pakistan came from the US formerly. It is also known that of late, the industrial ties with China have grown considerably. Equipment for all services is actively being procured from China, whether for battle tanks, for fighter aircraft or for warships. this is inevitable as the US faces decline in the medium term, and China shows signs of going on and on in its rapid rise in industrial terms. There is a transition in progress; the words referred to relate to this transition. Since Pakistan was not in the past a US satellite, it is not necessary to conclude that it will be a Chinese satellite in future.

    2. The US will perforce follow, not Pakistan’s agenda, but a path of cooperation with Pakistan, as far as possible, a cooperation carefully structured to yield results that the US would like to see, but in general, shorn of the little details, a cooperation.

    Without this, Pakistan remains a source of great problems for the US: as a planning centre for activity in Afghanistan; as an outsourcing location for jehadi money from the world over; as a possible source of nucler proliferation; and as an autonomous centre for continuing irregular warfare with India, and therefore as a nuclear flash point. The US cannot be expected to stay aloof and allow any or a combination of these things to happen. The US may or may not find Pakistan a greater opportunity than India; it definitely finds Pakistan a greater potential threat than India. Great powers do not solely address areas of potential growth; more in keeping with their self-protective nature, they eye areas of potential threat with greater attention.

    3. Your comment about India not remaining the same during this period is not clear; in your subsequent phrase, which country did you mean would be driven further to the right, Pakistan or India? Pakistan being driven to the right is worth discussing; India being driven to the right is not relevant for this discussion nor for these columns.

    4. Its sometimes stated, Jinnah did worst to Muslims of sub continent by dividing it 2 nations, now three. Continues hostility towards India bred from religious fundamentalism are doing greatest dis-service to Indian Muslims

    New readers and participants from India are by unwritten convention given a period of grace in which to catch up with the past deliberations in these columns. The remark that you made above should never have been made here, and would never have been made if you had done yourself the service of going through past discussions.

    It is now quite clear that it was not Jinnah who was responsible for the division of British India into two, and he was hardly to be blamed for a an event that took place a full 23 years after his demise.

    Regarding the rest of your statement, please understand two points, quite distinct in themselves, not to be clubbed as you have clubbed them.

    First, there is a distinction to be drawn between the state of Pakistan being a religious fundamentalist state, and state policy dictating that religion, and Islam, should be deliberately used as a tool and a weapon to preserve the territorial integrity of Pakistan, and to enlist support among sympathetic countries to prevent any diminution of the stature and international presence of the country. This is legitimate, although it is against our interest, and it is difficult to understand why we should wish to ban that, any more than it will be reasonable for them to wish to ban our frequent play on the fact of our democratic nature to whip up support among the ruling democracies of the western world.

    Second, the question of Indian Muslims being affected by it must be a joke on your part, a pretty bad joke at that. A bunch of people, lunatics according to a large section of the correspondents in these columns, agitate in the bazars of Multan or in Lahore, and Muslims in India are beaten, killed and repressed in various ways; is that reasonable or in any way to be justified? What is the connection? Is the problem not in India, rather than in Pakistan?

  24. yasserlatifhamdani

    Dear Bonobashi,

    Thanks for responding to Mr. Mukherji. I don’t understand why Jinnah is so repetitively brought into discussions here… is it because some on your side are unable to accept that 1947 happened and Pakistan is a reality… I wonder.

    In my opinion, Jinnah is the most important dead politician in South Asia. His vision of a South Asian Monroe Doctrine remains unfulfilled and yet the only hope … If Pakistan and India were to trust each other…. resolve the damn K question… and work out a South Asian Treaty Organization (SATO)… would either of us have to look to the US or China?

    China to my mind is a “friend” only because it gets to dump in Pakistan… this friend of ours has destroyed our manufacturing, our cottage and other industries…. I don’t know why the Mullah types find China so attractive.

    Our future lies in peace with India and in friendly cooperation with the West.

  25. Tiberius

    This proves yet again that Jinnah was a freemason.

  26. bonobashi

    @YLH

    I am replying to the first part of your comment, relating to MAJ, because it has some important implications for the ordinary citizen of any democracy.

    1. It would be dishonest if I did not remind you that one year ago, I thought the same, like all but perhaps a small handful of Indians. Tathagata Mukherji is a victim, not a perpetrator; there is a widespread consensus among political circles in India to perpetuate the myth that Jinnah brought about partition, and that he did so in furtherance of a wicked British plan to partition India and thereby ensure that an independent India would be weaker than it had the potential to be, undivided, and less of a threat to the West. There is agreement between Congress and its main opposition, the BJP, for different but effectively identical reasons.

    2. The Congress put itself in the posture of a wronged victim of a rape and milked sympathy from citizens, and simultaneously reached out to Muslims with the sub-text that only the Congress could protect Muslims, having always said that and having been proved right by the Muslim leadership abandoning the community and sailing away (metaphorically speaking) to Pakistan. So, vote Congress.

    3. The BJP needed to establish vis-a-vis the Hindu community their preferred status as political representatives, and sought to do this by a frequent allusion to Muslims’ inherent unreliability, due to their orientation to an alien religion, just like Christianity, and their holy places lying outside South Asia. This view was underlined by a demonology built around Jinnah, and tacitly winked at by the Congress, who found it only too convenient a political construct to refuse.

    I am completely unable to understand why Advani said what he did; the only feasible explanation is that he was an honest man, and it is impossible for me to think that about any BJP leader. Unfortunately, there is no other logical explanation.

    4. If you put these two together, you will see the outlines of a national consensus which completely denied the legitimacy and validity of what happened. A corollary to the theorem was that partition was an act of evil, hence at some time in future, it would be necessary to undo it; that Pakistan was a misbegotten monstrosity, hence at some time in future, it would be necessary to subsume that state, including it within India.

    5. A sub-text leads to that tiresome behaviour which so annoys sensitive Pakistanis, that of Indians going up to Pakistanis and seriously intoning to them that the two people were the same and only divided by the machinations of politicians (exclusively Pakistani politicians and most particularly Jinnah, although delicacy and tact and the legendary Indian courtesy and suaveness of diction – I am being ironic, let it be clearly understood – led to an elision of this precise detail).

    It is only now that an increasingly large section of the educated Indian classes is beginning to realise how we were hoodwinked, and how much at variance the actual facts were. It is painful that the two major parties actively promoted the myth, and even more painful that academicians let us down and that finally even the left failed us – of course, for the millionth time in recent history.

    Very briefly regarding the vision that you outlined, it is an invigorating one, with exuberant growth implicit in it, but for that to happen, India has to resolve, in a way that holds internal conviction, the three great unfinished matters left over from 47: Kashmir, the tribal question, the castes question. Nobody can help us resolve it, we have to do it by ourselves. Before these are resolved, we will be an HIV-positive partner in any alliance.

    Similarly, Pakistan needs to do one and only one thing: get its Army firmly and conclusively under civilian control. The religious issue will evaporate rapidly under the cleansing effect of frequent and viable elections.

    It is also fair to point out that even without a formal alliance, with Pakistan reaching out and building bridges into North and West Asia, and India reaching out to South East and East Asia, the implicit alliance, the neighbours at peace and trading together with mutual benefit, will be an unstoppable combination. It is not impossible for India to challenge China by itself, given a resolution of the three unresolved problems, and in addition, with a drastic overhaul of its systems of governance, such as the judiciary, police system and administration, and formal, enforceable curbs to political corruption; with a solid Pakistan, even if as a friendly but aloof neighbour, the issue is beyond doubt.

    Of course, you will formally have to acknowledge by solemn treaty that we are better in cricket.

  27. YLH

    “you will formally have to acknowledge by solemn treaty that we are better in cricket.”

    We acknowledge it but it will be hollow… 🙂. After all Pakistan has won what like 70 games to India 40?

    You can’t base a long term relationship on a lie.

  28. bonobashi

    @YLH

    OK, fine, if you’re so smart, tell me how else we get to beat you!! Nothing else seems to work.

  29. YLH

    Perhaps a friendship treaty to the effect that Pakistan will throw the next 30 games as a Confidence Building Measure….

  30. bonobashi

    @YLH

    ROTFL.

    That just might work. Except that our over-paid, over-hyped heroes would still have to turn up on the field. And with people like Dada, always late for the toss and setting a bad example, there’s no guarantee of turning up.

  31. D_a_n

    @bonobashi…

    ‘Hekmatyar has turned out to be a terrible choice, if only because his alternative has never had the opportunity, due to tragic circumstance, to do any lasting harm.’

    Yes, he has. but this was not clear more than 20 years ago. We backed the horse that we thought was the most loyal to us and chose not to back the one which we thought had agenda’s divergent to ours sooner rather than later. Again, my point being that no grand nefarious design immersed in some religious cloaking.

    ‘His subsequent battle-field record turned out to be pathetic (I didn’t know until you said so that he was well-considered in the field, as opposed to the organisation and propaganda side, before his selection). And he was the ISI choice in the first place.’

    Actually he had some very good days in the field from what I have read and discussed. he had major league fans on ‘the farm’ as well.
    Also (please correct me if I am wrong here as my memory is hazy on this)…his biggest failure on the field was Jalalabad. A badly run, over sold and bungled Operation based on trying to use the Muj as a regular field army….That one really was a stinker.

  32. bonobashi

    @D_a_n

    Not for a moment am I implying that the ISI chose a psychopath knowing that he was a psychopath, whereas I wouldn’t put it past the boys from ‘the farm’.

    I am criticising the bad selection, not calling it a deliberately, cynically bloody choice.

    And it was Jalalabad specifically that I was talking about. Incidentally, having said that Hekmatyar failed, there is also the factor that his ISI handler botched it miserably, trying to manage the battle through remote control. It was a well-known man; just can’t remember offhand. Using the lashkars as regulars was pricelessly stupid.

  33. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Bonobashi (the forest dweller?)>>I am completely unable to understand why Advani said what he did; the only feasible explanation is that he was an honest man, and it is impossible for me to think that about any BJP leader

    The problem of Indian media are manifold. One of the worst thing it did in recent times was to manipulate what Advani stated during his Pakistan visit few years back and created a controversy out of nothing. In the process, it demonized Pakistan/Jinnah more than it was needed.

    Here are true sequence of events-

    1) Advani quoted Swami Ranganathananada, a highly respected Hindu Saint from Ramakrishna Mission WHEN HE WAS DY PRIME MINISTER while releasing a book.

    2) Advani quoted same lines in Delhi in remembrance ceremony of the Saint after his death. On the dias was PM MM Singh.

    Indian media keeps mum on both occassions, never bothering about what Advani stated.

    3) Advani visits Karachi, again quotes the Swami. Media creates a controversy out of nothing.

    I would advise you to believe Indian media with pinch of salt.

  34. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>It is only now that an increasingly large section of the educated Indian classes is beginning to realise how we were hoodwinked, and how much at variance the actual facts were.

    Once again, believe in Indian media with a pinch of salt.

  35. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>Very briefly regarding the vision that you outlined, it is an invigorating one, with exuberant growth implicit in it, but for that to happen, India has to resolve, in a way that holds internal conviction, the three great unfinished matters left over from 47: Kashmir, the tribal question, the castes question. Nobody can help us resolve it, we have to do it by ourselves

    So, Bonobashi, you are an Indian? Sorry, I thought otherwise. There is no point in arguing with an Indian on “caste” on a Pakistani Website unless I am a believer Jinnah-Periyar doctrine of separate Tamilstan !!

    hehe…Keep on dreaming. Neither Kashmir going to Pakistan (as that will question rationale of muslims staying in rest of india (indian foreign minister stated this inside parliament in 1992-93)), nor caste as hindutva is doing wonders in bringing them into mainstream.

  36. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Yasser>>China to my mind is a “friend” only because it gets to dump in Pakistan… this friend of ours has destroyed our manufacturing, our cottage and other industries…. I don’t know why the Mullah types find China so attractive.

    Very sensible comment.

  37. Bloody Civilian

    Dan

    true. rabbani, despite his more polished personality, gave ample proof that he could match hekmatyar, blow for bloody blow. going just as low. mehsud was as ‘battle-hardened’ just not as crude as dostam. and so on.. for each one of them.

    that is why, it’s best not to interfere, and defend when attacked rather than pre-emptively ‘defend’ in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of an attack. strategy and tactics are complicated, principles are simple.

  38. bonobashi

    @Tathagata Mukherji

    October 13, 2009 at 7:16 pm

    I am unable to understand the point you are making. So Advani quoted Swami Ranganathananda; so what? Was he quoting at random? If so, why did he repeat himself on three different occasions, unless he had some reason to share the sentiment? And if it is your somewhat strange conclusion that the Indian media cooked up the whole controversy, why would someone in the same party hierarchy, Jaswant Singh, have cited Advani’s statements in his own defence? If the entire matter was so much of a media concoction, one presumes that Advani would have lost no time in making his true position amply clear among his peers.

    October 13, 2009 at 7:19 pm

    That was my own opinion, not that of the Indian media. Thank you for your gratuitous advice, but I prefer a salt-free diet.

    October 13, 2009 at 7:32 pm

    I prefer to be known by the substance of my views and arguments rather than my nationality or race or linguistic origin. Or religion for that matter. Apparently you differ, as you seem to decide what you will discuss with whom according to their national provenance. Fortunately, I have reason to believe that the majority here on this forum does not entirely agree with you. Believe me, it is a great consolation to know that.

    Further, you seem to have jumped to conclusions (only metaphorically, alas) regarding my views on Kashmir. As I have mentioned earlier, in a communication which you have ignored entirely, no doubt with very good reason, newcomers on this forum are given a certain period of grace within which they are expected to find out previously stated views, arguments and discussions. You may find my views on Kashmir, which are on record, illuminating; a search for it in past records will be useful for you. It may preserve us from behaviour that Pope described so well in his Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot:

    Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer,
    And without sneering, teach the rest to sneer.

    Perhaps a little less of the genteel titter and a little more application of mind in future? But then we are dealing with a Hindutva votary, are we not? And your behaviour must instruct us in what we are to expect from the rest of your tribe. You are doing pretty well from that point of view.

  39. YLH

    I hope everyone here has seen Rahul Gandhi’s disgusting comments earlier today.

    It is this arrogance …a problem with genetic makeup of the Nehru family…that led to partition in 1947.

    To my mind there is no difference between Varun Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi…both are equally the great grandsons of Jawaharlal Nehru…

    I am very disappointed by just how disgusting the Congress Party is and how disgusting the Gandhi-Nehru family is… Small minded petty people…

    Apologies to all those who might be hurt by these comments.

  40. bonobashi

    @YLH

    Rahul Gandhi? How extraordinary!! I thought he was sensible and level-headed. What did he say? I’ll be terribly disappointed if he did a Varun on us. There goes our last hope in the Nehru-Gandhi family.

    I sincerely hope you are wrong.

  41. karun

    That was my own opinion, not that of the Indian media. Thank you for your gratuitous advice, but I prefer a salt-free diet.

    *************************************************

    thank god for speaking up only for yourself. please be assured that no one in India follows your enlightened footsteps…..hence please dont generalise and dont give sermons.

  42. YLH

    If Rahul Gandhi is sensible then I’d rather not choose such sense. And this is not the first time btw…

  43. bonobashi

    @Karun

    Aren’t you speculating wildly when you say no one in India? How can you know? And it is good to see that you have added to your vocabulary beyond the word ‘bang’, although it is as unlikely that anyone will get any interest or pleasure reading your posts as it was before.

  44. karun

    @bonobashi

    two wrongs dont make a right…..[EDITED]

  45. YLH

    Karun,

    Please mind your language. Any moderator signed in right now please edit out the use of bad language in Karun’s post.

  46. bonobashi

    I’m sick and tired of these political baba-log who step into their father’s shoes but don’t know how to behave.

  47. Gorki

    “I am unable to understand the point you are making. So Advani quoted Swami Ranganathananda; so what? Was he quoting at random? If so, why did he repeat himself on three different occasions, unless he had some reason to share the sentiment?”

    Bonobashi Da:
    I have learnt a great deal from you and thus feel a silly trying to address your confusion about Advani’s motives since I feel that if you don’t get it then the explanation cannot be simple yet to my simplistic way of thinking, one obvious explanation keeps coming back so I have to say it anyway. So to me at least the answer is obvious if one considers what it was that he said, when he said it and where he said it.

    First, here is what he said (or rather wrote) in June 2005 while visiting the Minar-e-Pakistan :

    “There are many people who leave an irreversible stamp on history. But there are few who actually create history. Qaed-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah was one such rare individual. In his early years, leading luminary of freedom struggle Sarojini Naidu described Jinnah as an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. His address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947 is really a classic and a forceful espousal of a secular state in which every citizen would be free to follow his own religion. The State shall make no distinction between the citizens on the grounds of faith. My respectful homage to this great man.”

    So in my mind everything had a meaning.
    Advani’s visit to the Minar-e-Pakistan was interpreted by the media then as his (and BJP’s) final acceptance of the division of British India into two entities.
    Before then, there used to be the usual rumbling of ‘Akhand Bharat’ from those corners.
    The time he made this ‘concession’ was the post Zia Pakistan that had embarked on a dangerous road to fundamentalism the result of which was repeated attacks (and no doubt many more false alarms in the home minister’s office) by religion inspired zealots against India.

    Thus cannot one interpret his actions and words as saying:
    “OK, we accept the TNT, but the TNT we accept is that of MAJ and not of Zia ul Haq; at least stick to your side of the bargain; look this is what your founder wanted you guys to be, listen to him if not to us Hindus”
    (Moreover he never said he agreed with MAJ on everything or that MAJ did not say things in 1937-1946 period which he or his party may have a problem with)
    Now over to you, to take my theory apart one word at a time.😉
    Regards.

  48. bonobashi

    @Gorki

    Never mind. You missed the whole point by some parsecs. Perhaps tomorrow? In a more optimistic frame of mind?

    How could you bungle this one? It was quite easy, actually.

  49. bonobashi

    @Gorki

    A Parthian shot, delivered over the crupper while retreating at high speed:

    My objection was to the puerile logic on display; I quote Pope, therefore I am somehow dissociated from the sentiments that i quote. Why would I quote Pope unless I found him aligned with my views, in some way?

    So, too, with Advani; unless he was paid to sponsor Ranganathananda, why was he quoting him so frequently? To illustrate what he thought was the least fitting the situation? Or to illustrate what he thought most applied? Is it a very difficult decision to make?

    Coming now to your Byzantine analysis of the BJP and its thinking, and how it was exposed in very subtle manner by Advani: I think you are reading too much into what happened. I don’t think that the level of conversation and intellectual debate within the BJP goes into quite such depth as your analysis implies. It would be difficult to reconcile that kind of sophistry with the kind of brutality that the BJP habitually displays. Can we plausibly juxtapose such brutality and such supposed sophistry? It does not ring true to me.

    If you re-examine your statements, such a definitive re-statement of the BJP position would surely have been discussed not only within the BJP, but at length with the RSS overlords, perhaps even with the front organisations. Such an internal dialogue evidently never took place: if it had taken place, the furore that took place on Advani’s return would never have happened.

    I believe that your analysis, specious though it undoubtedly is, does not fit the subsequent facts.

  50. Bloody Civilian

    “OK, we accept the TNT, but the TNT we accept is that of MAJ and not of Zia ul Haq”…

    or of veer savarkar, gowlwalkar, moonje, or even that of lajpat rai, malviya and tilak?? the hindutvadis were always TNT-ists, pioneered partitionism long before anyone else, suddenly decided to oppose partition when it was actually happening, yet ensuring the partition of bengal and punjab, and remained akhand-bharatists of the strictly TNT variety ever since. Zia-ulHaq learnt his TNT from deobandists, not jinnah. and deobandists were not partitionists, they were what is rather peculiarly termed ‘muslim nationalists’… were they not? zia-ul-haq’s portrait ought to be hanging next to veer savarkar’s in the central hall of the parliament house in delhi… if we are to expect any consistency from the BJP types.

  51. Gorki

    @ Bonobashi:

    “such a definitive re-statement of the BJP position would surely have been discussed not only within the BJP, but at length with the RSS overlords, perhaps even with the front organisations. Such an internal dialogue evidently never took place: if it had taken place, the furore that took place on Advani’s return would never have happened.”

    I must admit that is a valid point and I have no proof that such a discussion took place (your point also makes all the more sense in light of the recent silly furore over the JS book.) Maybe I am giving the BJP ideologues more credit than is due.

    @ BC:

    As you have pointed out here and elsewhere, there is TNT and then there is TNT.
    The challenge for our generation and the future generations is to salvage all that was worthwhile in it and yet bury the unsavory versions of it.

    Perhaps like Bonobashi says, the BJP is incapable of thinking in such sophisticated terms but that does not mean others can’t. With people like you and YLH around, ther is still hope.

    Regards.

  52. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Bonobashi>>I prefer to be known by the substance of my views and arguments rather than my nationality or race or linguistic origin. Or religion for that matter.

    Are you an internationalist? Very good. But have confidence to tell which of the type you are:

    Islamist
    Xtian Missionary
    Marxist

    Or simple Taquiyya

    hehe…

    Be brave- or change name to Bonobashini (:)-)

  53. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Bonobashi(ni)>>And if it is your somewhat strange conclusion that the Indian media cooked up the whole controversy, why would someone in the same party hierarchy, Jaswant Singh, have cited Advani’s statements in his own defence?
    ———————-
    hehe…firstly, Advani did not say what is attributed to him. Secondly, Jaswant is nowhere close to Advani as far as political stature is concerned.

    Advani is the ONLY leader who never changed his stand on Ayodhya, or Ram Temple, Or for that matter on Jinnah.

    Advani is the greatest Hindu(tva) leader in last 1000 years India has produced. He is the first person who made majority rule possible after 1000 years of foreign rule by minorities (Muslims, then British , the self hating Hindu/internationalists like Nehru).

    That way, Advani’s place is secured after Adi Shankara.

    Look at how Jaswant is changing color. Here is a piece he wrote in 1993 terming Ayodhya demolition as “start of an emerging India” (http://www.india-seminar.com/2001/500/500%20jaswant%20singh.htm). And 2-3 days back, he says, he opposed Advani’s Ratha Yatra !

  54. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Bonobashini>>the question of Indian Muslims being affected by it must be a joke on your part, a pretty bad joke at that. A bunch of people, lunatics according to a large section of the correspondents in these columns, agitate in the bazars of Multan or in Lahore, and Muslims in India are beaten, killed and repressed in various ways; is that reasonable or in any way to be justified?

    ———-

    Congress is doing worse that that. Its using Muslim Community in India politically against Hindu issues.

    See, society lives by mutual cooperation between communities. Now, if you start using a group religiously for political votebank, what message it send to the other?

    And that too, Congress don;t have a clear stand. All halla-gulla on Ayodhya started by Congress Party, lock opened, Rajv Gandhi’s start of campaign of ram rajya etc etc…

    Even today, is Congress opposed to a grand temple at Ayodhya? Answer is no.
    Will Congress ever rebuild the mosque there? Answer is no.

    The difference between BJP and Congress on Ayodhya is very small.

    All these are creating fissures in the society. Rallying a minority group religiously for votebank that too against perceived interest of the majority is a dangerous thing.

    Its dilocates relationship between communities at the ground level.

  55. Luqmaan

    @tatha
    >Congress is doing worse that that. Its using Muslim
    >Community in India politically against Hindu issues.

    You are assuming indian muslims are suckers with their thumbs firmly in their mouths.

    The mosque or the temple …. who cares now?
    People are beginning to have better things to do with their time.

    Luq.

  56. bonobashi

    @Tathagata Mukherjee

    October 15, 2009 at 5:13 am

    Has anybody told you that assigning an arbitrary category to anyone who doesn’t support you, and then asking that person to justify that assigned position is a polemical tactic that is now obsolete?

    October 15, 2009 at 5:21 am

    Advani’s comments have been reported adequately by Gorki. I think we can do without your good conduct chits; we are not hiring bearers here.

    I notice that as your arguments become the more tinged with desperation, the more you slip into personal attacks.

    October 15, 2009 at 5:35 am

    Ah! Yet another discredited technique – change the direction! I suppose this was inevitable. The question was not about the role of the Congress; the question was about the transferability of anger in one country to another country, to the detriment of peaceful citizens of that country.

    Bringing in the role of the Congress obscures your inability to respond only for seconds. But considering your remarks on record on Indian fora, I suppose it is not worthwhile even calling you to account for your undisguised politics of communalism and inter-communal hatred.

    If you wish to debate Congress vs. BJP tactics and politics, try Chowk or some other suitable forum; this is not the best suited for the purpose, being focussed mainly on matters of interest to Pakistan.

  57. Luqmaan

    @tatha

    >Will Congress ever rebuild the mosque there? >Answer is no.

    And what about BJP? will they?
    Ayodhya is a milking cow for the BJP, each and every election they take it out and milk it like there is no tomorrow. Then freeze the cow for 5 years. This time they tried to milk it but got dung instead.

    >The difference between BJP and Congress on
    >Ayodhya is very small.

    Straight out from the BJP propaganda.
    Like cheese and chalk. Look so similar.

    >All these are creating fissures in the society.

    What about the sangh parivar. The harmony created by them is worthy of immense praise.

    >Rallying a minority group religiously for
    >votebank that too against perceived interest of
    >the majority is a dangerous thing.

    Ulta chor kotwaal ko daante’ …..

    What about rallying a majority group to come to power with open blood curdling threats to the minorities? How angelic/saintly was that?

    Luq

  58. Bloody Civilian

    The mosque or the temple…

    i agree it’s not about a mosque or a temple. it’s about the law and constitution of india. whether a political party milks it or tries to sour the milk… that’s politics. what about the law?

  59. Luqmaan

    @BC
    What about it?

    The laws are good and fair.

    Luq

  60. Bloody Civilian

    indeed. but law, unlike mosques or temples, is not something that you walk away and move on from. it must follow its course, the less delayed and circumspect the better.

  61. Gorki

    @Tathagata Mukherjee

    “Advani is the greatest Hindu(tva) leader in last 1000 years India has produced. He is the first person who made majority rule possible after 1000 years of foreign rule by minorities (Muslims, then British , the self hating Hindu/internationalists like Nehru).”

    And what did that blessed leader and his followers have to show for it besides an empty shining slogan, massacre of helpless men, women and children in Ayodhya and Godhara; Chaddi campaign and a shameless surrender in Kandhar?

    @Luq

    “What about rallying a majority group to come to power with open blood curdling threats to the minorities? How angelic/saintly was that?”

    Now that is very justified. Ask an Austrian-German Sankaracharya with a funny mustache.😉

    Regards.

  62. bonobashi

    @Bloody Civilian

    True. The law stays, above personalities and above organisations. However, it is implemented, or kept in abeyance in flagrant disregard of natural justice, by personalities or organisations.

    Luqmaan’s disenchantment with these personalities or organisations does not therefore amount to disenchantment with the law itself, or with the laws under the constitution, or with the constitution; it relates merely and specifically to those who have not complied with their oaths of office under the constitution.

    I believe you are on the same side, discussing two aspects of the same coin. Correct me if I am wrong.

    The extension of this disenchantment to other situations is so obvious that it hardly requires mention.

  63. Bloody Civilian

    bonobashi

    i wrongly thought that i had the luxury of completely ignoring this particular majoritarian communalist. my urgency to confront such tendencies ought to be no less, if not greater, than yours, gorki’s or luqman’s.

  64. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Luq>>The mosque or the temple …. who cares now?

    Mosque at Ayodhya is never going to be rebuilt.

    Yes, people care for Ayodhya, because of Rama.

    Whether you guys like it or not. Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi movement was world’s largest mass movement. More people took part in it than Gandhi’s Salt March, or Mao’s Long March.

    Leftists (who wrote the 1946 election manifesto of Muslim League but were driven out after Pak was created) demanded Rama’s Birth certificate and instigated hardline Muslims.

    And you saw what happened.

    Now, they are playing politics with rebuilding the grand temple (small temple already exists thanks to the then Cong Govt at center).

    No wonder, its going to help Hindutva in the long run.

    Ayodhya, Kashi, Mathura- are three top sites and should be handed over. There is nothing in Sharia that says Masjid must be built by demolishing others temples . On the contrary, releasing these two sites will create lots of good will.

    (Somnath was rebulit by removing a mosque- check the facts if you need, under congi rule)

  65. bonobashi

    @Bloody Civilian

    Perhaps, on second thoughts, your thinking on completely ignoring their poison is the best way to deal with communalists.

    My mistake, and through demonstration, Luqmaan’s too, I suppose.

    It is not clear why you wrote your last sentence. Your views are too well known to require definition or defence. We may as well ask if XMI is a democrat, or if QNB is loyal, or SS is a liberal.

    I agree with your implied thought that we can ignore communalists, and instead concentrate on the common cause, each set of us in our own spheres, and in moral support of one another.

  66. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Gorki>>And what did that blessed leader and his followers have to show for it besides an empty shining slogan, massacre of helpless men, women and children in Ayodhya and Godhara;
    ————
    Much bigger riots took place in India under congress rule where many more muslims perished.

    Ahmedabad 1969
    Neilly 1980s
    Bhagalpur late 1980s
    Mumbai 1992

    Who were ruling center and states then?
    Please find out how long it took central forces to reach mumbai in 1992 and ahmedabad 2002.

    Appaly your head and information.

    BTW, what would have happened in Kashmir Valley/Pakistan if minorities were to burn and kill 60 majority pilgrims?

    The hype of Guj 2002 is a ploy by Congress to milk Muslim Vote.

  67. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>ignoring this particular majoritarian communalist…

    hehe…Was it Mushirul Hasan (ex boss of Jamia Milia) who once stated- Problem of Muslims (in India) is they demand secularism, but think it will not be applied to them :)-

    Now, if you are a Pakistani, you live in a country that is a theocratic state, partitioned based on religion (and minorities driven out) and still have galls to accuse me to be ‘communal’ !!

    They say a joke in Dhaka (memorable joke from Mujtaba Ali’s memorable writing)-

    Katta, even the horse will laugh at you !

    (When the Sawari offered less price for his ride to the cart-man)

  68. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Bonobasini>>If you wish to debate Congress vs. BJP tactics and politics, try Chowk or some other suitable forum; this is not the best suited for the purpose, being focussed mainly on matters of interest to Pakistan.

    I did not start discussion with you- its you started.
    Anyway, its your choice whether to “destroy the plate where you eat”.

  69. Bloody Civilian

    Tathagata

    no one has any need to accuse you of anything, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, religion, or gender. your own claims, declarations and boasts suffice. btw, what does ‘bashini’ mean, as in ‘bonobashini’? i’m only curious since you suggested “Be brave- or change name to Bonobashini”.

  70. bonobashi

    @Tathagata Mukherjee

    Bonobasini>>If you wish to debate Congress vs. BJP tactics and politics, try Chowk or some other suitable forum; this is not the best suited for the purpose, being focussed mainly on matters of interest to Pakistan.

    I did not start discussion with you- its you started.

    No; you are lying. Read your own words, and how you introduced the topic:

    October 15, 2009 at 5:35 am

    Congress is doing worse that that. Its using Muslim Community in India politically against Hindu issues.

    See, society lives by mutual cooperation between communities. Now, if you start using a group religiously for political votebank, what message it send to the other?

    And that too, Congress don;t have a clear stand. All halla-gulla on Ayodhya started by Congress Party, lock opened, Rajv Gandhi’s start of campaign of ram rajya etc etc…

    Even today, is Congress opposed to a grand temple at Ayodhya? Answer is no.
    Will Congress ever rebuild the mosque there? Answer is no.

    The difference between BJP and Congress on Ayodhya is very small.

    And all this in reply to pointing out that public sentiment in Pakistan is not an excuse for reactions in India.

  71. Luqmaan

    >Mosque at Ayodhya is never going to be rebuilt.

    So?

    >No wonder, its going to help Hindutva in the long run.

    Can you please answer this simple question,
    What is this hindutva?

    >Ayodhya, Kashi, Mathura- are three top sites and
    >should be handed over. There is nothing in Sharia
    >that says Masjid must be built by demolishing

    Maybe if you politely asked the Indian muslims, they may simply give it to you.

    But the problem is that you demand, then nothing is conceded.

    Luq.

  72. Tathagata Mukherjee

    BC>>your own claims, declarations and boasts suffice

    and what abt records of the country of the person who says that to me in the first place as well a yours.

    Bonobashi means male forest dweller in sanskrit.
    Bonobashini means female forest dweller.

    This guy never identifies who is he, what his ideology is and here lectures. That’s why I thought Bonobashini is more apt for him.

  73. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Bonobashini>> you are lying

    Scroll back and find out you are an idiot- its you who first started replying to my post, not me.

  74. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>What is this hindutva?

    Read the book by Savarkar by same name- its available online.

  75. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>But the problem is that you demand, then nothing is conceded.

    See, I don’t want to discuss Ayodhya with a Pakistani on a Pakistan board. Also, a Pakistani has least credibility to talk about minorities and their rights.

    I had to raise issues because of this idiot Bonobashini who appears to be an India lecturing facts which are contrary to real situation.

    Guess, we deviated much from the original issue of this piece- read my first post- its a beautifully written piece.

  76. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Bonobashini>>And all this in reply to pointing out that public sentiment in Pakistan is not an excuse for reactions in India.

    Why not you migrate to Pakistan instead. Who cares. After all, Pakistan was demanded NOT by Muslims from present day geographic Pakistan.
    Pakistan was demanded by Muslims of nothern India.

    Many of your comments are hostile and you will find peace in the land of pure.

  77. Gorki

    Dear Tathagata:

    When I first started visiting the PTH, there were heated debates here about the partition and the two nation theory (TNT). I was often alone in wondering why Nehru and Gandhi’s vision was not embraced by Jinnah (MAJ) when all three were western educated, liberal and secular men who believed in the principles of enlightenment. I was opposed by a host of much smarter and better read individuals who pointed out to me that:

    1. The TNT was not invented by MAJ; it was an invention of some Hindu supremacists with fascist leanings
    2. While Nehru, Patel (and Gandhi) were perhaps sincere, it was their refusal to agree to give constitutional guarantees demanded by the minority Muslims that made partition inevitable.

    I understood the argument but was not entirely convinced till I read your posts above. Now I understand why MAJ was right all along and the Nehruvians were wrong.
    Now I understand that when Nehru saw a Muslim face in the crowd, he saw the face of another Indian yet when people like those whom you admire see the same face, they see the face of Babur the conqueror or Mohammad Ghaznvi the temple sacker; never mind the fact that a modern Indian Muslim has as much in common with those middle ages monarchs as President Obama’s white cabinet members have with the slave owners of yore.

    You set a very high bar for Advani Sahib when you claimed he was the greatest Hindu in millennia; yet to back your claim the best you could do was to say in his support was that the BJP inspired riots murdered less people than those under the Lilliputians who were running the congress governments!

    That’s it??

    I think you are sadly ill informed if you think that by just being less inept than a mediocre airline pilot turned PM makes Advani the greatest Indian in a millennia.
    Let me give you a brief glimpse of the competition: Even if you discount other Indians (and the Hindu congressmen of recent centuries) your hero will have to take a ticket and stand in line because far better men are ahead of him.
    Men like Tagore and Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Nanak and Tulsidas, Todar Mal and Raja Jai Singh, Shivaji and Dayanand and of course that giant of recent times Ambedkar.
    Yes Ambedkar (or may be in your book he is not pure enough)

    I think that people like you have preconceived notions as to who is a good Indian and who is not; that to be a good Indian you have to be a good Hindu. Well fortunately no one told us minorities that and fortunately a majority of Indians don’t see it your way.

    To us in the minorities, Indian is our home as much as yours because our ancestors too spilled their blood and sweat to earn the title to be called an Indian.
    Whether you like it or not building a strong and a prosperous nation for all of India’s sons and daughters is a far more pressing priority for most patriotic Indians than replacing a brick an mortar structure based on mythical claims. It is from the ranks of those that I would pick a man or a woman to be called great.

    Regards

  78. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Gorki>>1. The TNT was not invented by MAJ; it was an invention of some Hindu supremacists with fascist leanings

    Two Nation Theory was first mentioned by Syed Ahmed Khan, the founder of Aligarh Muslim University sometime in late 1870s in a letter to the then viceroy of India.

    I can’t think you educated Muslims DO NOT KNOW THIS. But, as usual, they think Taquiyya sometimes is a better option :)-

    Own up, man.

  79. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Gorki (May be you can leave this great author;s name alone and use something like Iqbal)>>the BJP inspired riots murdered less people than those under the Lilliputians who were running the congress governments

    I did not say BJP inspired riot.

    Neither a single case exists against Advani anywhere that proves he instigated it by his words/actions.

    HOW LONG THIS SHAMEFUL ACT OF ACCUSING PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE?

    Look at Modi- he is being hounded for last 7 years BUT NOT A SINGLE PROOF HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED.

    Even NYTIMES in a recent Article on encounter killing stated- “No evidence has been offered to show that Mr. Modi encouraged such killings.”

    Not a single case exists anywhere in India against Modi.

    How long it will take for you to understand these are being done for minority vote.

  80. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Gorki>>Now I understand that when Nehru saw a Muslim face in the crowd, he saw the face of another Indian yet when people like those whom you admire see the same face, they see the face of Babur the conqueror or Mohammad Ghaznvi the temple sacker
    ——————-
    Author/activist Madhu Kishwar (In her book “Religion at the service of nationalism”) says:

    “The preference of large sections of the Muslim leadership and westernised Muslim intelligentsia for a Nehruvian brand of secularism has proved to be very harmful for Muslims in the long run. In the process they have rejected & ridiculed Gandhi’s approach to inter-community harmony largely because they are uneasy with his use of certain Hindu symbols. This has strengthened the feeling that the Muslim leadership is innately hostile to the Hindus who are rooted in their own faith and is comfortable only with westernised Hindus like Nehru who are contemptuous of their own culture, religion and people.”

    Discarding Gandhi by Muslims, elite Hindus resulted Guj 02 & Ahmedabad 69(a week before Gandhi Centenary). In 69, more people died than in 2002.

    Did you know, Muslims were denied shelter inside “Sabarmati Ashram” during Guj02. What does it mean?

  81. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>Whether you like it or not building a strong and a prosperous nation for all of India’s sons and daughters is a far more pressing priority for most patriotic Indians than replacing a brick an mortar structure based on mythical claims.

    Firstly, Rama does not need your certificate whether its mythical or otherwise. Neither that of Communist historians. And we have seen the results of questioning Rama’s birth certificate by Muslims and Communists.

    We need both- Ram as well as roti. Look at Sachar report and analyze why in states after states like UP, Bihar, West Bengal- never ruled or ruled by BJP for a brief period, have Muslims at the bottom of developmental index. Its because of hostile attitude and politics played by large section of Indian muslims.

    Development is beyond religion. Look at Gujarat. Why Muslims situation is best there. Present efforts of special rights for Muslims will do even more damage to this community as society at large will not tolerate it anymore.

    Its going to divide the society even more at the grass root and become a bigger rallying point for Hindutva.

    I posted earlier an URL, a piece written by Jaswant Singh in 1993 after Babri demolition that describes the whole incident as proof of an “Emerging India”. Pls read that.

  82. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Gorky>>that giant of recent times Ambedkar.
    Yes Ambedkar (or may be in your book he is not pure enough)

    ————
    1. Ambedkar was also a votary of Hindutva. Some top Leftist historian (from CPI) stated that in recent times. Ambedkar differentiated between those religion(s) that treat India as Punyabhumi/Karmabhumi and those who don’t. He was allured to convert to Islam by Nizam of Hyd by paying a huge some of money. Missionaries also gave him a blank check. He chose an Indian Religion- Buddhism, founded by an Avatara of Vishnu !!

    2. 1st movement to remove casteism was started by Ambedkar, not by Gandhi. Go and read history.

    3. Gandhi visited RSS’s office few times and appreciated their casteless approach.

    4. Hindu Groups and Dalit groups cooperate in many cases. Find out more on most prominent dalit author of India Namdeo Dhasal and what’s his link with RSS, Hindutva.

    5. Biggest political project in the history of Hindutva is grand ayodhya temple and its foundation was laid by a Dailt.

    6. Sarat Chandra Chatterjee, pre-eminet Indian novelist stated thus in 1920s after seeing violence cause by Muslim groups due to Khilafat movement- “this Hindu Muslim problem will be solved in a day when Hindus unite”.

    7. So, people are acutely aware the need of Hindu Unity. AFTER ALL JUST READ ABOUT JOGENDRA NATH MONDAL (Dalit leader from bengal who sent Ambedkar to the constituent assemly), LAW MINISTER OF PAKISTAN- WHY HE COULD NOT PROTECT DALITS OF EAST BENGAL (east Pakistan) AND WHY HE HIMSELF HAD TO FLEE TO CALCUTTA FOR HIS LIFE!

    In the net, you will find his resignation letter to the then Pak Prime Minister.

    8. The Dalits and large section of Muslims economic interest collide at the grassroot level. With the rise of dalits economy and their sanskritization, its bound to clash more and more with growing Islamized Muslims.

    These are some of the thoughts that are known but people don;t speak publicly often.

    I have put then for your info.

  83. Tathagata Mukherjee

    * typo corrected.

    2. 1st movement to remove casteism was started by SAVARKAR, not by Gandhi. Go and read history.

  84. Bloody Civilian

    Tathagata

    thanks for explaining the difference. so what makes you think a man is brave and a woman is not? (“Be brave- or change name to Bonobashini”)

  85. karun

    I was opposed by a host of much smarter and better read individuals who pointed out to me that:

    Gorki bhaiya , you sound like a neo convert trying to proselytize the common folk.

    and to tell u the truth i find your intelligence much sharper and of a more sensible variety than the gang of 4-5 you eulogize. Pls dont be so humble.

  86. Tathagata Mukherjee

    BC>>so what makes you think a man is brave and a woman is not? (“Be brave- or change name to Bonobashini”)

    We Hindus believe in Guna, attibutes. Not in present polemic of feminism of the West.

    Woman to us mean many things- from Shakti, to the Lajja (who is shy).

    Probably that’s why I thought he shd use a female name instead of male.

  87. Gorki

    1. “can’t think you educated Muslims DO NOT KNOW THIS. But, as usual, they think Taquiyya sometimes is a better option”
    …………………………………………………..

    Aren’t we being presumptous here?
    I will leave it up to the Muslims to speak up for themselves, I can’t speak for them.

    However unlike you I don’t like to divide up Indians into neatly defined boxes and categories; thus what Muslims know or not, whether they follow Nehru, Mayawati, Advavi or Joyti Basu, I leave it up to them.
    For me as long as they believe in the constitution of Inda, that is good enough.

    2. “Gorki (May be you can leave this great author;s name alone and use something like Iqbal”
    ……………………………………….

    Until a fascist state is estabished in India (and a permission is needed from the ministry of truthiness and virtue or some such absurdity) to use a name, I will keep using mine, thank you very much.

    Regards

  88. karun

    @bc

    Tathagata

    thanks for explaining the difference. so what makes you think a man is brave and a woman is not? (“Be brave- or change name to Bonobashini”)

    hahaha…….now the feminist angle…or sandals perhaps!!

    beta tathagata teri to khair nahi

  89. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >constitution of Inda

    Its a man made document.

    All bawal started with Shah Banu, remember?

    Or you are one of those who support constitution on Ayodhya, but not on Shah Banu :)-

  90. karun

    @tathagata

    brother! absurd comments! stop immediately!!
    ************************************************

    BC>>so what makes you think a man is brave and a woman is not? (“Be brave- or change name to Bonobashini”)

    We Hindus believe in Guna, attibutes. Not in present polemic of feminism of the West.

    Woman to us mean many things- from Shakti, to the Lajja (who is shy).

    Probably that’s why I thought he shd use a female name instead of male.
    *************************************************
    bravery=courage = dhairya(male)
    bravery=courage=dhriti(female)

  91. Tathagata Mukherjee

    dhairya does not courage. It means patience.

  92. Tathagata Mukherjee

    * dhairya does NOT mean courage. It means patience.

  93. karun

    🙂 ok so dhriti means courage which means its a feminine quality

  94. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Dhriti means courage? I think it means resolute.
    (Dhritiman is the masculine gender- Dhritiman Chatterjee is a famous actor, did many Satyajit Ray’s film).

    But Bonobasi has no courage. So, she should be named- Adhriti Bonobasini.

  95. Luqmaan

    @Tatha

    None of the hindu debaters i met online knew what hindutva meant.

    I was expecting something better from you. I don’t want a reference to a book (even the URL of that book is not available with you)

    I very patiently ask you again,

    What do you personally mean by the word hindutva?

    Luq

  96. Luqmaan

    @Tatha

    Please run a search on google for
    Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate
    read the first link that crops up.

    Then come back and read your messages here.

    Luq

  97. Hayyer

    Tathagata Mukherjee:
    I used to find it hard to imagine the mentality of people like PN Oak who believed the Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple. Now I think I can.
    It has to do with lingering sensations of impotence, inability to distinguish the real from the imagined, and resort to invective and abuse in place of logical argument.
    You’ve made fun of Bonobashi’s name and then of Gorki’s. Do you think it makes you a wit? This sort of coarse humour can be ‘heard’ from other certifiable crazies like Sadhvi Rithambara. I believe PTH allows its display so everyone in the world can see how justified Pakistan was.
    Your brand of incoherent nonsense, shot out machine gun fashion, always loud rarely clear, a wild and phrenetic recitation of hate, never cogent but always provocative suggests that you are wasted at PTH-You should be leading a mob.

  98. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Use google..I usually avoid posting URL- because the post will be blocked then and you have to wait someone to clear that.

    You are free to draw your own conclusion.

    Hindutva means= bankim chatterjee + Swami Vivekanand + Swami Dayanand + Tagore+ Tilak + Lajpat Rai+ Bipin Pal+ Savarkar + Aurobindo Ghosh + …………… upto Uma Bharati and all those in between.

    Educated, enlighted, casteless, proud, aggressive Hindus who will not accept any more delay dally on governance, or his/culture of india.

  99. Luqmaan

    @Tatha

    >You are free to draw your own conclusion.

    Thats exactly what we are told every time the question is asked, What is hindutva?

    >Hindutva means= bankim chatterjee + Swami
    >Vivekanand + Swami Dayanand + Tagore+ Tilak
    >Lajpat Rai+ Bipin Pal+ Savarkar + Aurobindo
    >Ghosh + …………… upto Uma Bharati and all
    >those in between.

    You are kidding me! Hindutva is a bunch of proper nouns?

    Since this is the second time you are avoiding the question, let me yet again, ask you

    What does hindutva mean to Mr Tathagata Mukherjee?

    I dont want names, I dont want links, I want it in 5 or 10 or of english sentences.

    If you are unable to answer it, then admit it.

    Luq

  100. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Karun>>Pls do not make this a hindu vs muslim thing

    I have never commented on Islam VS Hindus religiously. Most of my comments on against those who are trying to brow beat anything Hindu in the name of displaced secularism but they themselves chickened out on Shah Banu/Rushdie/Taslima.

    What I am trying to say here is, its bad for social tolerance, bad for secularism, bad for minorities, bad for the country.

    —————-
    Hayyer>>I used to find it hard to imagine the mentality of people like PN Oak who believed the Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple. Now I think I can.

    How you know Taj Mahal was NOT a Hindu Temple. There are 1000s of Masjid worldwide where during Muslim period they tore down the temple of natiove people and then built over it.

    Whether PN OAK is wrong or right can only be established by archeological probe of closed chambers of the said building.

    No?

  101. Hayyer

    Karun:
    Bigots eventually reveal themselves, whether wearing glasses or not.

  102. Tathagata Mukherjee

    * What I am trying to say here is, its bad for social tolerance, bad for secularism, bad for minorities, bad for the country. Also bad for Indo-Pak relationship.

  103. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>You are kidding me! Hindutva is a bunch of proper nouns?

    There was a sentence after that !!

    Check power of your glasses Miyan !

  104. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>Bigots eventually reveal themselves, whether wearing glasses or not.

    Records of Pakistan and India state otherwise.
    Isn’t it?

  105. Luqmaan

    >There was a sentence after that !!

    So hindutva is a sentence that says

    >Educated, enlighted, casteless, proud, aggressive
    >Hindus who will not accept any more delay dally
    >on governance, or his/culture of india.

    thats it?

    To a bystander this looks like avoiding a straight answer. Or you have none.

    You have avoided the question with a vague bunch of proper and common nouns.

    At least now, could you have a straight answer to –> What does the word hindutva mean ?

    Luq.

  106. Hayyer

    Karun:
    Even you might want to watch the company you keep.

  107. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>To a bystander

    You are not a bystrander. Pakistan was created bacause it does not accept the unity of Indian Civilization.

    So, you are raised with a potent dosage against it.

    The names I provided are heavy weights. neither they are anti-muslim. They are pro indian.

    I know the availability of their work in urdu may not be easily available, but rudimentary english translation will help you understand it better.

    Choose Bankim Chatterjee for example- and read his essays- not novels. he raised questions decades before what so called modern day historians, anthropologists, socioligists started raising.

  108. D_a_n

    @ tathagata mukherjee….

    You spake:
    ‘How you know Taj Mahal was NOT a Hindu Temple.’

    how do you sir, know that the moon is NOT made out of cheese….??

  109. Luqmaan

    >You are not a bystrander. Pakistan was created
    >bacause it does not accept the unity of Indian
    >Civilization.

    I meant -bystander to *this* argument not bystander in history.

    To anyone who is reading (what you are writing), it looks like you are simply too vague on what hindutva means to you.
    In fact, now we suspect (and increasingly becoming clearer looking at the lack of response from you)
    1. you are trying to escape defining hindutva yourself or dont know what it is.
    2. It is too secretive to be put online.
    3. It is some malleable tool used any which way one desires to further ones cause (political or criminal)

    Luq

  110. Majumdar

    Tathagata da,

    which of the type you are:

    Islamist
    Xtian Missionary
    Marxist

    You have suspected Bono da of being a mullah (Islamist), Xtian Missionary or a Marxist but you have missed his real ideology- he belongs to the 4th M of the evil quadrangle- he is a Macaulayite

    Regards

  111. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Dan>>‘How you know Taj Mahal was NOT a Hindu Temple.’

    how do you sir, know that the moon is NOT made out of cheese….??

    ————

    Repeatedly reminding Taj Mahal by Pakistanis is a symptom what can be called Al-Andalus Syndrome.

    A major section of (educated) Muslims suffer from it. I think Iqbal once stated something like this- when the thunder falls, its falls on a Muslim.

    What can I do. Taj Mahal is in India. Come and watch, spend money if you want. That’s it.

  112. Majumdar

    Dan bhai/Tathagata da,

    I think we can sort out this issue once and for all. We can raze Taj Mahal- enough expertise is available on both sides of the Radcliffe Line- and then dig up to see whether there was a temple underneath.

    Regards

  113. karun

    @hayyer

    mind your own business and company

  114. Gorki

    “you sound like a neo convert trying to proselytize the common folk”

    Karun:

    Thanks for the complimentary tone of your post but I can assure you that I have no intention to convert anyone and certainly have no other hidden agenda.

    Let me reiterate: I wrote that after reading TM’s posts, I understood why MAJ was right all along and the Nehruvians were wrong.

    Consider the evidence; Nehru (and others like him) were driven to madness by MAJ’s insistence on separate Muslim majority areas within the Indian Union to preserve their identity as South Asian Muslims while Nehru insisted that since constitutional guarantees would exist anyway to ensure such rights for all Indians, there was no need for such an arrangement.

    On the face of it; Nehru’s argument seems much more reasonable but now look at the ground realities.

    This is what our learned friend Mr. TM has to say about the constitution:
    “Constitution of India, It is a man made document” in effect, it is nothing but a minor irritant.

    And this is what the news reports had to say about his party’s candidate for the Pilibhit Lok Sabha constituency in the recent election:

    “Raising his hands, Varun Gandhi repeatedly said that this not the Congress’ symbol of hand but is the BJP’s arm that will behead these K&t*%* (extremely derogatory word which is a highly offensive slang to describe the community. Amid chants of Jai Shri Ram, the young face of BJP and the scion of Nehru-Gandhi delivered not just a speech of extreme vitriol but threatened to kill and cut heads and hands”

    Now if this is what a fourth generation of Nehru has to say about the Muslims in India, does it not leave one wondering which of the two men were right after all?

    You will also notice how our friend Tathagata has opinion about everything, from what the people on this blog ought to call themselves to what ails the ‘educated Muslims’ of India (whom he first lumps into one neat block) and then tells them exactly who they should not follow: “Nehruvian brand of secularism has proved to be very harmful for Muslims in the long run….”

    He casually usurps leaders and icons like Lord Buddha and Ambedkar into the Hindutva Pantheon, never mind the fact that inheritors of these people are themselves standing apart from such trickery and hateful ideology.

    But my favorite Tathagata quote of the day was this:

    “Discarding Gandhi by Muslims, elite Hindus resulted Guj 02 & Ahmedabad 69(a week before Gandhi Centenary).”
    In effect saying that the pogroms against the Muslims was their own fault!

    Brilliant.

    I noticed that he is tormented with an uncontrollable urge to classify people into neat categories.
    Tell me, Oh Bonobashi, please tell me he nags ‘If you are an Islamist, an X-tian missionary or a Marxist’.
    It bears an eerie parallel to another group of Aryans who boasted of being a master race and were obsessed with such demographic classifications.

    What next; a rule mandating that all minorities wear a little yellow armband for their own protection or be segregated into working and living quarters under a large gate with a Sanskrit translation of the words “Arbeit macht frei” (Work makes you free) etched over it?

    When pressed to describe Hindutva he first tries all sorts of polemics to avoid giving an answer and then flings this slogan like non-answer into Luqman’s face:

    ”Educated, enlighted, casteless, proud, aggressive Hindus who will not accept any more delay dally on governance, or his/culture of india.”

    He earlier asserted with unabashed pride that Advani was the first true Indian leader of India in 1000 years.

    One wonders which part of his agenda was not fulfilled under other leaders before him, say for example Nehru (whom he classified as a self hating Internationalist)

    Surely Education, enlightenment, castelessness and pride were all there, the only thing missing then was aggression.

    Yes aggression. Perhaps naked agression.
    Now I get it; for it was this that Tathagata’s political heroes preferred Nehru’s great-grandson to the old man himself.

    Well then Varun certainly was a rare find because if he demonstrated anything at all, it was aggression; and then some.

    The newspapers also reported that at another rally Varun had insulted an old Sikh man too; calling him ‘not Hindu enough’ and asked him to leave his rally immediately.

    Perhaps Varun is right, ‘not Hindu enough’ describes many Indians today as it has done for the past 1000 years now, give or take a few.

    There is a story of one such man who was hanged by the British for avenging the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre. He calmly gave himself up to the police after the act and when asked his identity by the arresting cops, he replied:
    “I am an Indian and my name is Ram Mohammed Singh Azad”.

    Certainly not Hindu enough!

    Regards.

  115. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Majumdar>.You have suspected Bono da of being a mullah (Islamist), Xtian Missionary or a Marxist but you have missed his real ideology- he belongs to the 4th M of the evil quadrangle- he is a Macaulayite

    —–

    You have a point. But Macaulites are mostly self hating Hindus. They have a saffron heart inside.

    Take example of Prof Hiren Mukherjee, a top Communist leader. He used to wear Sacred thread (I am bit more progressive in a sense because I don’t keep the sacred thread :)- )

    Remember what Subhas Chakraborty recently stated-

    “First I am a Hindu
    Then I am a Brahmin
    Then I am a Communist. In that order.”

  116. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Luqman>>To anyone who is reading (what you are writing), it looks like you are simply too vague on what hindutva means to you.
    ———–

    No. I have left enough hint of what Hindutva means.

    What you want me to elaborate here? Phisolophy, Religion? Hindutva is a political construct , less religious/philosophical. basically its a mixture of two/three dominant trends

    (1) English educated Hindu middle class- Bhudeb Mukhopadhyay, Bankim chatterjee, vivekananda….(mostly eastern india)
    (2) Orthodox trend of that of Swami Dayanand…..Lajpat Rai…(mostly north/north-western india)
    (3) Activities, polemic of Tilak, Savarkar…..from Pune, Maharashtra.

    Congress Party was partitioned in 1907 in Surat Congress between the naram/garam parties. Somehow, the naramwadis carried the day because of advent of Gandhi.

    Hindutva is the strand of Congress that was pushed out in 1907-it has comeback with a big bang. And will remain so for foreseeable future.

    The more urbanize India becomes, the more ‘educated’ people become, the more globalize India becomes- Hindutva will grow that much.

    No wonder, Indias economic capital (mumbai), science/technology capital (bangalore) and political capital (delhi) all have a strong BJP presence.

  117. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Gorki- your last long post is polemical, based on little or no facts or fabicrated facts.

    Why not challenge facts I represented while claiming SAVARKAR, NOT GANDHI/AMBEDKAR , STARTED MOVEMENT AGAINST CASTEISM, RIGHTS FOR HARIJANS TO ENTER TEMPLES.

    You earlier claimed- some Hindu Supremacists started 2 nation theory.

    While fact remains its Syed Ahmed Khan who started it.

    Lets talk facts. Not manipulated facts, distortion. Polemic does NOT help based on fabicrated facts.

    BTW, there were no Aryan. Believe in DNA analysis or not? Or Science also has become vehicle of Hindu supremacist :)-

  118. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Majumdar>>We can raze Taj Mahal- enough expertise is available on both sides of the Radcliffe Line- and then dig up to see whether there was a temple underneath.
    ————
    Nobody is talking abt razing taj. But why this denial? There are 10s of 1000s of Masjid in India and world wide which are standing today on destroyed temples of subjegated non-muslim people. This could be one too, who knows. How can you deny unless you open the closed chambers below of taj what was it before?

    BTW, Sitaram Yechuri (CPIM leader) as leader of parliament committee that oversees cultural departments like Archoelogical Department are trying their best to stop ASI from digging. History Congress manipulated by Marxists also passed resolutions in that regards.

    They are deeply worried that any further digging in any old monument will bring something out which they will be hard presses to defend.

    Moot question is- even if it were, what has the average Indian Muslim has to do with it. It was done by the then invaders.

    Question is, why then in denial, why trying to avoid that issue.

    Communal Politicians, Historians create more problem, thus allow backlash to be built. And then average janta pays for that.

  119. bonobashi

    @Majumdar

    Thank you for ripping off my skullcap, cassock and false beard and showing me up in public.

    I owe you for this. Wait for the next time you are in Calcutta. You will be taken to the University of Kalyani and forced to listen to the lumpen-salariat who will pass from there and take jobs in (what else?) the IT sector. After that, when you are screaming for mercy, you will have to copy the most turgid prose from that famous hang-out of contemporary saffron intellectuals, rediff.com. That should fix you.

  120. Luqmaan

    >What you want me to elaborate here?
    >Phisolophy, >Religion?
    >Hindutva is a political construct , less
    >religious/philosophical. basically its a mixture of >two/three dominant trends

    Again from where I am living, all I have is a handheld device/phone which will not help me browse.
    So, you cannot point to any web source and expect me to find out by myself.
    This thread comes as a sms. No internet browsing possible.

    So, whatever you (tatha) have to say, you have to type yourself here in this message.

    Also explain to me in detail this philosophy + religion and how this is a political construct.

    By the way, congratulations on this first sensible post from you, if you stick to the principles of proper debate, you will do just fine.

    By the way, it would help a lot if you take each argument of gorki’s and hayyer’s line by line and reply with the enormous patience which only you seem to have.

    Luq

  121. bonobashi

    @Luqmaan

    Not patience, stamina. Patience implies an engagement with the other; stamina is merely an ability to continue in a self-referential mode until infinity. Your friend does not want to be disturbed by facts, or by analysis, or by anything except his own malformed opinions, devised in his own malfunctioning intellect.

    It is possible to de-construct his entire contribution to date to demonstrate its sole dependence on these principles and these alone (except of the laddish sense of humour, which is so close to Sadhvi Ritambra’s brand of wit, as already pointed out). That would play into his hands, since it would suit his purpose of displacing discussion and debate by Pakistanis and people who want to discuss matters related to Pakistan, and his secondary purpose of attracting attention to an extent which he has failed to do on his native boards and fora.

    This is a hijack bid by one of those mindless drones that even right-wing commentators like Swapan DasGupta have begun to deprecate. The Internet has a heavy responsibility for granting these cultural and sociological illiterates (who date from the massive expansion of Indian education into the PCM variety of numbers by rote, and who are aghast when they are confronted for the first time by the arts disciplines) equal access to fora.

    It is a social disease that we are going through, like hives or genital warts, and will stop only once the causes are set right; only when balanced education is brought into the system. Till then we have to suffer this ill-composed, ill-spelt, ungrammatical incursion of the barbarians.

  122. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>Till then we have to suffer this ill-composed, ill-spelt, ungrammatical incursion of the barbarians.

    Barbarians and their chela-chamundas live in AMU, JNU and Jamias. Not the other way round.

    Talk on facts, not polemic. That will give you nothing. Enless suffering from Andalus Syndrome, name calling will lead you nowhere.

  123. Hayyer

    Bonobashi:
    It is not barbarian. Psychiatrists have a name for this disjointed, episodic and delusional rambling, tinged with expressions of persecution. Dr. Gorki would know better. I think it’s called paranoid schizophrenia.

  124. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Hayyar>>It is not barbarian. Psychiatrists have a name for this disjointed, episodic and delusional rambling, tinged with expressions of persecution. Dr. Gorki would know better. I think it’s called paranoid schizophrenia.

    ———–

    Its the other way round. What Tom Friedman described as God 2.0, the only perfect religion !! Others belong to God 1.0 and we Hindu Infidels God 0.0 !!

    “One of the factors driving Muslim males, particularly educated ones, into these acts of extreme, expressive violence is that while they were taught that they have the most perfect and complete operating system, every day they’re confronted with the reality that people living by God 2.0., God 1.0 and God 0.0 are generally living much more prosperously, powerfully and democratically than those living under Islam. This creates a real dissonance and humiliation. How could this be? Who did this to us? The Crusaders! The Jews! The West! It can never be something that they failed to learn, adapt to or build. This humiliation produces a lashing out.”

  125. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Those who perform these acts of violence and those who refuse to see that/don;t condemn, or try to blame others as reasons are equally responsible for this.

  126. bonobashi

    @Hayyer

    My mistake; I should have considered the matter from a clinical angle, not a sociological one. Apologies.

  127. Mr. Tathagata,

    BJP: Total Votes in 2009: 78,435,538
    Total Votes in 2004: 85,866,593
    Total Votes in 1999: 86,562,209

    Thats a 8.6 % decline, even though they were not incumbent.

    As for India’s major metros, last time I checked, the BJP did not hold any of them except Bangalore.

    It is a bit unfortunate that I had to make this comment, given that this post has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.

    But I hope this shuts you up.

  128. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Vikram>>But I hope this shuts you up.
    ————

    Presently BJP rules Delhi Corporation (Congress almost wholly wiped out in that election), Mumbai Corporation (even though SS was under major split when election was conducted), Ahmedabad Corporation(for a long long time), Bangalore Corporation.

    Calcutta for all practical purpose is a dead city (though BJP derives maximum ideologues from this state) and Chennai follows a curuious caste-language politics (though both DMK-AIADMK have been partners of Hindutva).

    Where do you see BJP weak in Metros unless you are blind.

    By the way, what’s difference of BJP and COngress in states like Maharashtra/Gujarat.

    Does Congress have guts to QUESTION SAVARKAR IN MAHARASHTRA, OR GUJ 2002 IN GUJARAT?

    BJP’s rise is a historical reality- probably Hindutva is the most successful cultural movement the world has seen in last 3-4 decades.

    It pushes the envelop so much, large parts of India- Punjab, Himachal, haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chattishgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa…has not sent any Muslim MP in this election.

    Much like even a Nehru could not ensure Maulana Azad getting elected from West Bengal after partition and he had to stand from the ghettos of Rampur.

    So, keep on playing this politics of hate, instigating the minority, abusing majority- things will get worse.

  129. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>Psychiatrists have a name for this disjointed, episodic and delusional rambling, tinged with expressions of persecution. Dr. Gorki would know better. I think it’s called paranoid schizophrenia.

    —————

    In bengali, we have a saying- Chorer Mayer Baro Gala (thief’s mother shouts the most).

    A Pakistani whose country was born out of hate, used terrorism (Narendra Sarila- “The Untold Story of India’s Partition”- is of this view) to achieve it, descending into a failed state because of its flirting with despicable elements of history (born out of elements who were used in the first place to create the state) now trying to lecture.

    Tauba Tauba !

  130. Gorki

    Tathagata:

    I am going to give it one last try since I really want to understand how the South Asian right wing mind works. I can understand the hate and narrow mindedness of the barely literate Taliban; I can even force myself to justify the impotent rage and angry rants from the likes of Zaid Hamid but try as I might, I can not explain why a right wing hateful ideology seems to be taking root in a country like India just when it seems that it might (just might) pull itself out of its crushing poverty and take its place in the family of nations as a responsible member if it stays the course.

    In trying to understand, I am asking your help to make sense of all that you have written so far. Believe me; I am trying to approach this with an open mind.

    So when you wrote Hindutva is: Educated, enlightened, casteless, proud, aggressive Hindus who will not accept any more delay dally on governance, or his/culture of India, I made a sincere effort to see if there was a middle ground which would be acceptable to my mind.
    I realized that I have no problem with an educated Hindu or with an enlightened and casteless one. Proud, well it depends, proud of what? If it is pride at the civilization that is India, how can one not be proud but after that I start running into difficulties.

    You wrote ‘proud’ but then implied that Advani is the only leader in the last 1000 years of whom Indians should be proud of; that sets me thinking; if so than what about some of my personal heroes, Jalaludin Mohammed Akbar or Sher Shah Suri?
    If these great men were not Indians then who was?

    How could some of my countrymen be so blind or so ignorant that they reject the divine poetry of Ghalib or the teachings of Mian Meer or Kabir as anything but Indian? How could these have taken place anywhere else in the world but India? How could these be alien? How could the Hindutva proponents claim to love India but reject Titans like these men?

    After all what makes us Indians of today one nation if not the composite of all the cultural waves that lapped our shores and enriched our common heritage?

    India has a Sikh PM today; a member of a minority community, not imposed upon it by any subterfuge or force but by the will and wisdom of its teeming millions.
    How can one fail to notice then that his Sikh faith arose a few centuries ago as a direct result of an interaction of two great faiths known to mankind; Hinduism and Islam?
    That his religious texts carry beautiful verses written by many Indian thinkers both Hindu and Muslim all equally revered as saints?

    The next part; aggression becomes even more problematic for me. Do you not believe in the democratic process? If you do then why do you guys need aggression? I earlier reproduced a newspaper story about Varun Gandhi as an example of extremely crude bigotry which you dismissed as a fabrication but then I don’t have to go too far; here below are your own utterances:
    1. You are not a bystander. Pakistan was created because it does not accept the unity of Indian Civilization
    2. BJP’s rise is a historical reality…..It pushes the envelop so much, large parts of India…has not sent any Muslim MP in this election.

    I reproduce these because to me they say only one thing: Hindutva aggressively believes that India belongs only to Hindus and minorities are nothing but second class citizens. If so, then how can we build a modern nation if we retrogress and introduce political apartheid against 140 million of our own countrymen?

    In post after post you have assumed that people who oppose the BJP must be congressmen. Perhaps you should understand that to many of us, our first loyalty is not to a party or a platform but the republic in which we believe. Thus many of us oppose the congress for the Shah Bano surrender and the Delhi riots just as we oppose the BJP for its intimidation of the minorities.

    To many of us Nehru does not represent a congressman but a founding father above party politics who once fondly called Vajpayee a PM material.

    The same Nehru also wrote in his book DOI that when he thought about the similarities between the values espoused by Asoka’s rock edicts and the philosophical musings of Emperor Akbar in his proposals for the Din-e-Elahi, he was struck by the fact that these two men; one a Buddhist and another a Muslim, who never knew each other and were separated by more than 17 centuries still spoke of the same values that were uniquely Indian; universal tolerance. He then mused that perhaps they both spoke with the same voice because it was the same voice; that of mother India, speaking through them!

    So I end my last post to you with this question:
    Travelling the breadth of India, watching its various children of different faiths, cultures, and languages, don’t people like you ever hear that same voice of mother India espousing tolerance and inclusiveness or you choose to not listen to it?

    I have one last request.
    You may ignore my post altogether but if you do choose to answer, kindly be as specific as you can to address my above concerns.

    Regards.

  131. bonobashi

    @Gorki

    I appreciate your spirit of broad humanism and your Gandhigiri, but while you try your experiments with truth, we have to suffer this excrescence. Is it necessary that we try out these private experiments in a public forum?

    Just for the record, by now you have enough evidence regarding his education, which, from his orthography, his not being able to produce a single passage without lapsing into the vernacular or without mistakes of grammar as well as of spelling, is a technical one, at one of the lesser known bucket shops (not AMU, JNU and Jamia Millia explicitly, but probably not at either Calcutta U or Jadavpur U, for they still have standards); his enlightenment, considering how clear his social, political and religious beliefs are; and his castelessness, since all he could find to say about Hiren Mukherjee, and that fortunately departed enforcement and collection agent of the ruling kleptocracy in Bengal, Subhas Chakravarty, was that they were Brahmins.

    Why are you wasting your time, dear (deemed Pakistani) friend? More to the point, why are you wasting our time? Why don’t you pick up a cockroach and dissect it instead?

  132. Hayyer

    Fly swats are what you need. On a Pakistani site, flies from India are to be swatted by Indians.

  133. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Gorki>>India has a Sikh PM today; a member of a minority community, not imposed upon it by any subterfuge or force but by the will and wisdom of its teeming millions.
    —————-
    You must be kidding, man !

    Firstly, what sort of mind set is this that one became PM because of his minority religion? Its a secular country. No? Now, as it appears, you are fine if one is chosen because of his minority community, but have problem should somebody speaks the same language for majority community !

    This is nothing but perverted secularism. This is primary reason for rise of Hindutva.

    Secondly- Since when MM Singh became elected by people? Not in his whole life he got ever elected.

    Partha Chatterjee, noted historian spoke thus after chamcha MM Singh was chosen first by Sonia-

    “It (Congress) has made an astounding constitutional innovation by electing Sonia Gandhi as chairperson of its parliamentary party and authorizing her to nominate the leader of the parliamentary party. It sounds as though the prime minister of the country will hold office at the pleasure of Sonia Gandhi who is, of course, formally speaking, just another member of parliament”

  134. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Neither MM Singh is a economist of stature. There are host of Indian economists who did major work, but MM Singh does not belong to the same class of Amartya Sen, Meghnad Desai, Kaushik Basu, Bhagwati…..

    (its also funny, Congress invokes Indira who destroyed Indian economy by permit/control raj as well as try to take credit for ‘liberalization’ of MM Singh)

    Neither he was first choice as FM of Narshima Rao. Only when IG Patel refused to become FM, MM Singh was chosen.

    Whatever small achievement MM Singh achieved in liberalization as FM was because of the political support given by probably the best Congress PM ever Narshima Rao.

    As a PM , MM Singh was a lame duck. Could not do anything on liberalization even though he was PM during UPA I. Because he has zero political base and credibility.

    Alas, BECAUSE OF YOUR BUILD IN HATE TO ANYTHNG HINDU, you see anybody and everybody however ineffective, disgraceful it is for the country, democracy will be your hero.

  135. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>You wrote ‘proud’ but then implied that Advani is the only leader in the last 1000 years of whom Indians should be proud of; that sets me thinking; if so than what about some of my personal heroes, Jalaludin Mohammed Akbar or Sher Shah Suri?

    ———–
    Let me rewrite it- Advani is the first leader in India in last 1000 years under whom majority tasted power for the first time. His place is at the very top after Adi Sankara as a nationalist.

    (now do’t ask stupid question like was nehru a hindu or not. nehru’s ideology was not indian).

    Yes, Akbar can be your hero. But Indian history did not start from Muslim invasion of India.

    You may like to read the speech Nehru gave to Aligarh University students few months after partition. He spoke something like this-

    “India has long history and achieved many things in its course. All those belong to you- come forward and proclaim it.”

    A recent trend is to start Indian history from Buddha, thus disown Vedia India, that of Indus-Saraswati Civilization.

    (see the fun, how communal psuedos are. More sites have been found around the Saraswati River, but when one uses the name Sindhu-Saraswati Civilization, its termed as communal.

    Communal are the psuedos- who hate anything Hindu.)

  136. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>The same Nehru also wrote in his book DOI that when he thought about the similarities between the values espoused by Asoka’s rock edicts and the philosophical musings of Emperor Akbar in his proposals for the Din-e-Elahi, he was struck by the fact that these two men; one a Buddhist and another a Muslim, who never knew each other and were separated by more than 17 centuries still spoke of the same values that were uniquely Indian; universal tolerance.
    ———-
    The last line appears influenced by Amartya Sen.

    Guess, you should ask why Sen was forced to flee Dhaka, his home.

    How many people follows Akbar’s Din E Elahi today? Was Akbar’s policy followed by subsequent Mughal rulers? If Akbar’s policies were followed, would Pakistan have been created?

    Guess, the win of Aurangzeb over Darah Shikoh decided the fate of the subcontinent. 350th year of Martyrdom of Darah Sikoh passed away few weeks back. Why not Congress organize(d) some celebration for that? Or it was not done to offend Muslim sensibilities thus affect the votebank. Then, how come Indian Muslims oppose syncreatic ideologies of Darah if they chose to stay in India?

    I would say, Nazrul islam should be treated as a major figure. He wrote finest nationalist poety. Shyama Sangeet (songs in praise of Goddess Kali) is not complete without Nazrul written Shyama Sangeet. He wrote many many Islamic songs too.

    But was Nazrul Islam followed by muslims of Bengal? If so, partiton was not needed, neither wholesome massacre, uprooting of Hindus from there.

    I would say this- Akbar, Nazrul Islam, APJ Kalam are exceptions in the discourse of Muslim seperatism of India.

  137. bonobashi

    @Gorki

    I told you so!

    It takes the creep only 14 days to flip-flop.

    ====================================

    Tathagata Mukherjee
    October 17, 2009 at 10:33 pm

    I would say this- Akbar, Nazrul Islam, APJ Kalam are exceptions in the discourse of Muslim seperatism of India.


    ====================================

    Board Name : http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2009/oct/03/slide-… 160 Messages | 1 by Tathagata Mukherjee

    Re: Re: Floods in Andhra Pradesh & Karnataka.
    On Oct 04, 2009 07:07 PM Permalink

    Abdul Kalam is Muslim he is an anti-National.how can we accept his vision.

  138. Gorki

    Bonobashi:

    I stand corrected and appropriately chastised.
    Although I must say in my defense that having interacted with a certain self described right-winger Bengali gentleman with a sense of humor and a keen intellect (also a fondness for witty neologisms😉 ) on these very pages of the PTH I got spoilt and mistook our friend as someone similar.

    Sadly it turned out not to be the case.
    Having learnt my lesson, I am done.
    I have to go now and dissect some cockroaches.😉

    Regards.

  139. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Is there only one Tathagata Mukherjee in the world? How difficult it is to change the screen name in Rediff and post it under “Tathagata Mukherjee”? Or even open an email id under name Tathagata Mukherjee?

    Taquiyya is a sacred method as per holy book. No wonder, the terrorist who did Mumbai train blasts used Hindu name to rent house, even used it to his girlfriend.

    The person who sent money to VOIP company for opening phone numbers that were later used during 26/11 Mumbai attack also used Hindu Name.

    How long you guys will continue this?

    Do you guys have no shame left?

    If you want to discuss, do it properly with facts.

    Polemic will not help. Distorted facts will not help.

  140. bonobashi

    @YLH
    @Gorki
    @Hayyer
    @Majumdar
    @Bloody Civilian
    @D_a_n
    @Luqmaan

    CRANIAL ANATOMY OF A TROLL: LIGHT READING FOR A SUNDAY

    We are dealing with a deranged mind, incapable of two consecutive logical sentences (forget the mangled grammar and syntax, forget those luxuries, forget spelling, let’s just cope with simple logic, ‘Now I can go to the toilet on my own’ variety).

    Let us examine one of his posts in detail.

    > Author: Tathagata Mukherjee
    > Comment:
    > >>The same Nehru also wrote in his book DOI
    > that when he thought about the similarities between the
    > values espoused by Asoka’s rock edicts and the
    > philosophical musings of Emperor Akbar in his proposals for
    > the Din-e-Elahi, he was struck by the fact that these two
    > men; one a Buddhist and another a Muslim, who never knew
    > each other and were separated by more than 17 centuries
    > still spoke of the same values that were uniquely Indian;
    > universal tolerance.
    > ———-
    > The last line appears influenced by Amartya Sen.
    >
    > Guess, you should ask why Sen was forced to flee Dhaka, his
    > home.

    Amartya Sen was never forced to flee Dhaka, his home.

    This is typical of the meandering line of thought, if it may be so dignified, that marks this unlettered bigot’s approach.

    A line ‘appears influenced’ by Amartya Sen.

    Multiple purposes are served:

    1. the little bigot is able to drop the name Amartya Sen, which has no connection with the argument being addressed; there is no authorship claimed, only a nebulous ‘appearance of influence’;
    2. now it is possible to evade the line written by Nehru, years before Amartya Sen made his mark, and divert the topic to Amartya Sen;
    3. in another hop away from logic, this unlettered clown then goes to ask why Amartya Sen left his home town of Dhaka;
    4. Amartya Sen’s father’s departure from his home town, and settling down in Santiniketan, is of course not a factor; to quote from the man himself:

    I was, however, born in Santiniketan, on the campus of Rabindranath Tagore’s Visva-Bharati (both a school and a college), where my maternal grandfather (Kshiti Mohan Sen) used to teach Sanskrit as well as ancient and medieval Indian culture, and where my mother (Amita Sen), like me later, had been a student. After Santiniketan, I studied at Presidency College in Calcutta and then at Trinity College in Cambridge, and I have taught at universities in both these cities, and also at Delhi University, the London School of Economics, Oxford University, and Harvard University, and on a visiting basis, at M.I.T., Stanford, Berkeley, and Cornell. I have not had any serious non-academic job.

    So the bumbling, bungling troll meanders along: Gorki’s original point about Nehru’s recognition of the unity of Indian culture is strangely transmuted in the dim recesses of this troll’s brain into a tenuous connection with a different person, whose dates are years after the passage under discussion, and finally, not even on that second person’s views, but on that person’s totally inaccurately described movements.

    Amartya Sen was never in Dhaka, was not born there, not brought up there, not educated there; the issue of his having moved from Dhaka is a complete wild goose chase, introduced only because this clown does not know his facts, does not have the faculties to recognise an argument and counter it, and believes that in writing very large and copious quantities, he will finally wear down all opposition.

    But again:

    > How many people follows Akbar’s Din E Elahi today? Was
    > Akbar’s policy followed by subsequent Mughal rulers? If
    > Akbar’s policies were followed, would Pakistan have been
    > created?

    The question was not of Akbar’s syncretist religion being followed in large numbers; it was not even about the religion. It was about the recognition across nearly 2,000 years by two completely different people that India stood for some universal values.

    Gorki never attempted to project either the Din e Elahi or the policies of Akbar; he was speaking of the philosophical foundations to these two, and of the similarity of these foundations to the philosophical foundations behind the principles enunciated by the pillars raised by Ashoka.

    But this was of course too difficult and complex an argument for the poor, aching brain of our troll visitor, whose entire psyche must have been shrieking out for relief. Hence the half-crazed rant about the numbers who followed Akbar, about Aurangzeb and Dara Shikoh, and about other favourite Sangh Parivar topics.

    Bengal has a long traditional of clerical service to the British. These clerical services were open to those who passed their examinations, examinations designed to demonstrate the ability to write grammatical English, but which required no display of original thought or any kind of speculation whatsoever. The topics set were mundane; the responses were expected to be banal. Several generations of such indoctrination have obviously had their effect; even technicians are now bent to those standards and qualifications. Their tricks of the trade resemble those of the old time babus.

    A standard practice, if an unknown essay topic was set, and if it had not figured in pre-examination preparation, was to construct a logical bridge from the unknown topic to a prepared topic. As the hilarious piece of apocrypha goes, asked to write on Admirals, an unknown topic, a candidate wrote,”Admirals ride horses. Horses eat grass. Cows also eat grass. I shall now write about the cow.”

    Quite.

    Precisely so, in fact. Called upon to acknowledge the deep roots within India of certain recurring philosophical themes, the troll finds it impossible to cope, as we have seen before, and builds a logical bridge: you mentioned Din-e-Elahi; nobody adopted this; so Akbar was a failure; the only success was Aurangzeb; instead they adopted a harsher version of Islam; this was adopted by Aurangzeb; and off we go on the Gujarat Gallop (apologies to PAVOCavalry). So watch what happens. Watch the drift carefully; the logical bridge is still being built, in one incoherent, rambling statement after another:

    > Guess, the win of Aurangzeb over Darah Shikoh decided the
    > fate of the subcontinent. 350th year of Martyrdom of Darah
    > Sikoh passed away few weeks back. Why not Congress
    > organize(d) some celebration for that? Or it was not done to
    > offend Muslim sensibilities thus affect the votebank. Then,
    > how come Indian Muslims oppose syncreatic ideologies of
    > Darah if they chose to stay in India?

    Skip.

    > I would say, Nazrul islam should be treated as a major
    > figure. He wrote finest nationalist poety. Shyama Sangeet
    > (songs in praise of Goddess Kali) is not complete without
    > Nazrul written Shyama Sangeet. He wrote many many Islamic
    > songs too.

    Skip.

    > But was Nazrul Islam followed by muslims of Bengal? If so,
    > partiton was not needed, neither wholesome massacre,
    > uprooting of Hindus from there.

    Skip.

    > I would say this- Akbar, Nazrul Islam, APJ Kalam are
    > exceptions in the discourse of Muslim seperatism of India.

    APJ Kalam? Where did he bob up? Ah, examples of ‘house’ Muslims; another Gujarat Gallop theme. But our troll has a brain the size of a pea; he forgets that 14 days earlier, on Rediff.com, he had said something quite different:

    Abdul Kalam is Muslim he is an anti-National.how can we accept his vision.

    The troll can’t deal with Gorki’s extremely complicated formulations, and they seem to be making his head ache. Unfortunately he can’t deal with his own meanderings, since they are driven by chance and never by logic, so he manages to trip over himself in the form of his avatar of a fortnight ago!!

    Hilarious.

    This Neanderthal wants to take on Gorki. Frankly, it’s all Gorki’s own fault, for fooling around with endangered species.

  141. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>he forgets that 14 days earlier, on Rediff.com, he had said something quite different:

    ———

    Not me, its you and your friends performing taquiyya, the Islamic deception.

  142. Tathagata Mukherjee

    AMARTYA SEN STUDIED IN DHAKA SCHOOL.

    HIS FAMILY HAD HOME IN DHAKA. AND MANY RELATIVES.

    GO AND CHECK FACTS.

    WHY DO YOU DENY THAT BENGALI HINDUS WHOLLY WIPED OUT FROM BANGLADESH BY UR BROTHERS?

  143. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Even Wiki writes these in its Amartya Sen page-

    “Sen began his high-school education at St Gregory’s School in Dhaka in 1941, in modern-day Bangladesh. His family migrated to India following partition in 1947” !

    But resident fundoo Islamic apologist Bonobasini wants to prove otherwise !!

  144. bonobashi

    @Gorki

    Now your little pet takes refuge behind the multiplicity of Tathagata Mukherjees in this world; earlier, he was breathing fire and brimstone about the anonymity of a nickname, however unique, and rendered himself and his sycophant, the baby troll, helpless with laughter by feminising a name.

    In his own case, however, this has now become a federal offence.

    One must ask oneself: are all Tathagata Mukherjees trolls? It seems so, if one is to go by evidence.

    If this particular specimen can adduce any evidence of uniqueness, it might be possible to deal with the situation sui generis, otherwise it is surely not totally unfair to assume that two unusual names with two identical points of view belong close together. Can he tell us anything about himself that will distinguish him from the other?

    You will be amused to note, dear Gorki, that your pet has been writing under this name for years, and this example was taken from a writing of 14 days ago. So this cannot have been a careful trap laid by the crafty Islamists of the forum as a snare for the simple, innocent little baa-lamb who wandered in, seeing that the gate was open.

  145. Gorki

    Bonobashi rides to the rescue (pun unintended)

    TM was not the only one with a headache. My head was hurting too (and spinning rapidly) after reading paragraphs like these:

    >“Let me re write it- Advani is the first leader in >India in last 1000 years under whom majority >tasted power for the first time. His place is at the >very top after Adi Sankara as a nationalist. (now >do’t ask stupid question like was nehru a hindu or >not. nehru’s ideology was not indian). Yes, Akbar >can be your hero. But Indian history did not start >from Muslim invasion of India. You may like to >read the speech Nehru gave to Aligarh University >students few months after partition. He spoke >something like this-“India has long history and >achieved many things in its course. All those >belong to you- come forward and proclaim it.” A >recent trend is to start Indian history from >Buddha, thus disown Vedia India, that of Indus->Saraswati Civilization. (see the fun, how >communal psuedos are. More sites have been >found around the Saraswati River, but when one >uses the name Sindhu-Saraswati Civilization, its >termed as communal.”

    I read and reread it several times, sincerely trying to understand what TM was trying to say.
    Light had only gradually begun to dawn on me after I started to read your post till I came to the following line:

    “Admirals ride horses. Horses eat grass. Cows also eat grass. I shall now write about the cow.”

    At this point dear Bonobashi, it all made sense but the floodgates opened. I started to laugh uncontrollably, alarming my wife (I must have looked like an idiot, laughing into a silent computer screen). Tears rolled down my eyes but I was helpless and still could not stop.
    I now have aching ribs from laughing so much.

    Jokes apart, you last post was a classic; it also clarified many things for me.

    In fact the above line neatly sums it all.

    Thank you.

  146. Bloody Civilian

    rediff are a bunch of dirty, taqquiya observing muslims too. while any dirty muslim with a crystal ball could have pre-emptively sabotaged TM by taking on his nick at rediff, only rediff could have conveniently back-dated the date & time stamp on the racist statement.

  147. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>In fact the above line neatly sums it all.

    No it does not. You are trying to deny the reality. Basically, you have no answers to the facts presented.

    You know for sure that there are no difference between Congress and BJP in Gujarat, Maharashtra.

    You know for sure, Congress will never have galls to challenge Savarkar IN MAHARASHTRA, or Guj 2002 in Gujarat.

    Congress makes noises in Delhi for people like you and milk your vote. NOTHING CHANGES ON THE GROUND.

    Show me one fact that I misrepresented. (Comment on Advani is my opinion and I am entitled to that.)

  148. Hayyer

    ‘Show me one fact that I misrepresented’. Which fact did you present?

  149. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>Which fact did you present?

    Just for your clue, the language and script used here to write is to be read from left to right !! Not the other way round.

  150. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>while any dirty muslim with a crystal ball could have pre-emptively sabotaged TM by taking on his nick at rediff, only rediff could have conveniently back-dated the date & time stamp on the racist statement.

    ——–

    This is not first time happening. It happened previously as well.

    They want to disrupt discussion and use this method. As they can’t confront the facts, crumbling nehruvial ideals who is the HERO OF EDUCATED AS WELL AS MULLAH MUSLIMS BECAUSE HE WAS HOSTILE TO HINDUS.

    May be, the guys who do that in rediff as well as here are product of same school.

    APJ Kalam is a special case where even though he is a muslim, he is close to national ethos of India, and favorite of hindu right. Dr Kalam is also very popular amongst people for his humble ways, contribution to adding teeth to national defense.

    No, Dr. Kalam is not hated by hindu rightwing, but by assorted jihadis.

    I think, Dr. Kalam, Kurien (Amul) ‘s names were particularly mentioned by RSS Boss in his last Vijaya Dashami speech.

  151. Hayyer

    Yes left to right, not all stuffed to the right and upside down as well as backside front.

  152. Bloody Civilian

    the language and script used here to write is to be read from left to right !!

    congratulations on the first and only fact to come from you on this board!

  153. Gorki

    Tathagata:

    Please listen to this carefully. If you take the time to read the PTH, you will realize two simple things that are easy enough to grasp:

    1. This is not an ordinary blog site of the chowk or even the rediff variety where the usual pissing match occurs between Indians and Pakistanis trying to blow smoke takes place daily.
    2. There are not many people here who are fans of Nehru (besides one odd man out: me) or the congress party of India (there are no exceptions)

    If you take the time, you will also understand some more subtle things that will take more complex thinking to understand. If you do, you will notice that the people on the PTH are extremely well read and thoughtful people and although many of them have strong views, most of them are very objective, and not driven by any one ideology but by a realization that nation building is a serious business and they are trying to do their bit by writing. Some of them have contributed articles\essays\poems etc to the more traditional media.

    In such a group, Pakistanis are presently doing much better in terms of both the freshness of ideas and the quality of writing and we Indians are having an up hill task of keep pace with them. Among such people I think you are sadly out of your league.

    All you have done so far is used bazaar level humor, or tried to pass off some catch phrases as philosophy. OK it was funny for a little while but now it has become very irritating. What in nut shell are you saying?
    1. That the majority community in India was long suppressed and is frustrated that even now, under a democratic system has been unable to dominate the political and the social landscape.
    2. That the Muslims are some how lesser Indians.
    3. That Pakistanis are somehow to blame
    4. That the congress is no better than the BJP in many respects.
    Out of these, I must admit that I agree with you on point 4, but that has been my opinion all my life, so no credit to your rambling.

    Other than slandering a major minority in India neither you nor your heroes have presented any positive vision of how an average Indian’s life will improve if things changed suddenly from the current setup.
    May be you have ideas how that will be, but rest assured no one here, on a Pakistani forum is interested in finding out how one political party in India is better than another.
    As for myself, I have made it amply clear to you in the past and reiterate it again; my loyalty is not to a political party or even a platform, it is to the Republic of India. As a part of that loyalty, I am convinced that it is absolutely necessary that Pakistan the nation becomes a thriving, prosperous and an important nation in the world and that its people develop good relations with us Indians.
    So once you understand the above, you will notice you have very little to contribute to the debate here or otherwise to this site.
    Therefore I think your (and our) time will be better spent if you stop writing and find another site where your kind of debate is sought after.
    Best of Luck.

  154. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>congratulations on the first and only fact to come from you on this board!

    haha…Obviously you understood that I referred to Urdu ! Its not written in Urdu was what I meant and that’s why your misunderstanding :)-

  155. Gorki

    To any grammar Nazi lurking by:

    I re-read my post with extreme embarrasment at the glaring grammatical errors in it.

    Before you pounch on me to adminster some well deserved rough justice, kindly keep in mind that this is a call weekend for me and I am sleep deprived and catch only a few minutes in between it and work to write something.

    I tried constructing my sentences several ways but as it happens (to me anyways) sometimes appendages of the previous sentence remains undeleted. Feeble as it is, this is my defense and I am sticking to it.😉

    Will try to do better next time.
    Regards.

  156. bonobashi

    @Gorki

    You are solemnly confirmed to be safe from being pouched upon. No pounching until you have caught up with your sleep. However, there is some confusion in my mind, caused by repeated exposure to your little pet’s ramblings:

    May be, the guys who do that in rediff as well as here are product of same school.

    ===========
    Before you pounch on me to adminster some well deserved rough justice, kindly keep in mind that this is a call weekend for me and I am sleep deprived and catch only a few minutes in between it and work to write something.

    I tried constructing my sentences several ways but as it happens (to me anyways) sometimes appendages of the previous sentence remains undeleted. Feeble as it is, this is my defense and I am sticking to it.

    ===========

    Could you please affirm that you are not Tathagata Mukherjee, in any one of his ten avatars?

  157. Gorki

    “Before you pounch on me…. ”

    It is hopeless, I give up.😉

    But
    I admit or deny nothing.

    Regards.

  158. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >> I am convinced that it is absolutely necessary that Pakistan the nation becomes a thriving, prosperous and an important nation in the world and that its people develop good relations with us Indians.
    ——————
    “We live in a world of curious euphemisms. There are things we want to say at times but cannot. So we say them in different ways.

    For instance, whenever we say Pakistan, what we really mean is Muslim. When we say Pakistan is behind something, what we actually mean is: These Muslims are behind it. But since it’s still politically incorrect to blame an entire community, and a minority one at that, we blame it on Pakistan. Pakistan , to the average Indian, incorrectly I dare say, represents all that is wrong with Islam. Every time we blame Pakistan, we are actually blaming Muslims.”

    Above two para are from an op ed of Pritish Nandy, not mine !! Don;t start shooting foul mouth.

    Pakistan’s goodwill in India is at the bottom since 1947. Sponsoring terrorism, drug, fake indian currency, groups engaged in violence you name it are norm of the day.

    I think depending on NATO/US’s departure from Afghanistan which will happen within next few years, things will get worse.

    Whether its Sayyid Hafiz, or Dawood- it touches a raw nerve.

    Some people argue that there will be a fatigue in Indian response in Kashmir(left ideologue Ashok Mitra is of such view). I doubt that will ever happen with rising economic power, middle class of India who are predominantly Hindu.

    I believe in those strategic views that strong Pakistan is not in India’s interest (Bharat Verma’s view). You are entitled to yours as long as it shows some progress on the terrorism, fake currency, drug front.

  159. Luqmaan

    Its been excruciating to read your posts all along, where your sentences consist of non-related phrases, peppered with “not my view”, “savarkar said this”, “go read that essay”.

    >I doubt that will ever happen with rising economic
    >power, middle class of India who are
    >predominantly Hindu.

    Kashmir is somehow linked to economic power which is twisted out of context to link it to middle class of India and then a religion label is pasted on that middle class. What are you sensibly trying to do? The signal to noise ratio is rather low like 1:1000

    All of what you are saying is being ignored. I checked out (plenty of) other online communities and everywhere they love you like the plague (not just on rediff).

    What is on display everywhere is that someone gave you a few links to (or books of) RSS propaganda and you are incoherently parroting it.

    Just give it a deep thought.
    What sort of a human being are you? You want to simply follow whatever fallacious poison is told to you?

    What is the difference between you and *any* Ajmal Kasab who, after listening to propaganda, can butcher unarmed men/women/kids on the other side (or even his side) of the border.

    Can you for a moment think that all the people holding the same passport as you are, are your equal. That they should not be held responsible for the actions of invading armies of 1000 year back.

    You have one large brush and you paint everyone either green or saffron.

    >Bawal started when some folks started dishing
    > out lies, half truths, hate, some even abused
    >people based on language like Bengalis.

    How does one counter that? By dishing out your own lies, half truths and hatred?

    Maybe if you confronted that with sensible argument/debate sticking to accepted rules of debate, you might have been heard.

    Instead you have resorted to personal attack, dished out vague definitions, you have posted controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic declarations which may help whip up communal frenzy and help you become a mob leader where you can rape and murder muslim, christian underage girls in your place, but it wont cut ice with anyone educated enough.

    Your posts are (often in response to an honest question) designed to upset, disrupt or simply insult the group. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a congress supporter or jehadi or some other neat classification.

    >BJP’s rise is a historical reality- probably
    >Hindutva is the most successful cultural
    >movement the world has seen in last 3-4 decades.

    When facts are presented to the contrary you simply dismiss them as irrelevant.

    Where the BJP is losing votes, it becomes a dead city, inconsequential. Then suddenly muncipal corporations of Mumbai become more important.

    You never answer a direct question – you cannot, if asked to justify your twaddle – so you develop a fine line in missing the point. That displays cowardice too.

    Armed with few social skills, you rarely make what most people would consider intelligent conversation (look who’s talking).

    However, you frequently have an obsession with your IQ and feel the need to tell everyone. This is so frequently on display here.

    You have fractured funny bones for sure. Regular waves of nausea are common symptoms faced here.

    Either you convert yourself from a pest to human or we pool in and buy you a one way ticket to the moon.

    Luq

  160. Luqmaan

    >I believe in those strategic views that strong
    >Pakistan is not in India’s interest

    What is it that you dont believe in ?

    >that strong Pakistan is not in India’s interest

    Nothing can be further from the truth.

    Luq

  161. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Luqmaan- Its said, those who are sleeping can be awakened. But those who are pretending to be sleeping can never be.

    Make no mistake, I never thought Pakistanis and muslims/self-hating psuedos from India will appreciate the obvious things elaborated by me.

    Its in your “swabhaba”.

    Choicest adjective hurled towards me will not change an iota of fact, or the reality, or most importantly your situation.

    The problems Pakistan, or muslims/self-hating psuedos from India face shall remain same and continuted denial will make it worse, if not already.

  162. Hayyer

    pseudo facts, pseudo history and now pseudo psychology. TM, please waste someone else’s time and leave us self hating types to our selves.

  163. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>pseudo facts, pseudo history and now pseudo psychology. TM, please waste someone else’s time and leave us self hating types to our selves.

    Hehe… I am 2 small a person. Even gandhiji failed to achieve the needed change, who am I?

    Continue ur swabhaba.

  164. Tathagata Mukherjee

    >>2. That the Muslims are some how lesser Indians.
    ————–
    I have shown respect to Indian Muslims like Nazrul Islam, APJ Kalam , noted author Mujtaba Ali and others. Or for that matter to Mughals like Dara Sikoh.

    But I have no time for Muslim seperatists who continued to live in India and playing their politics of seperatism.

    Look at (in)famous PIRPUR Report- Its author, a prominent Muslim seperatist, close friend of Jinnah continued to live in India.

    Look at Sadaullah, the top Muslim League leader from Assam…………never left India.

    Look at MIM, its founder who was a RAZAKAR head………………….so many League supporters at every district continued to live in India.

    Congress allowed all these people to remain , but they continued to pull string, stroke same seperatism. Thus, Muslims in India continue to play same seperatist politics AS BEFORE PARTITION.

    Tell me, why public will accept it anymore?

    ————————–
    3. That Pakistanis are somehow to blame

    Who are funding, supporting, giving space to innumerable terrorist groups inside Pakistan that are attacking India?

    Not from the planet Mars, but Pakistanis themselves.

  165. Tathagata Mukherjee

    Here is a story that circulates in Andhra Pradesh (Hyderabad state of Nizam).

    When PV Narshima Rao was the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh (he was also PM of India, probaly most successfuly ever PM), leader of MIM Salahuddin Owaisi (who was a Razakar during Nizam’s rule) came to meet PV for submitting some demands for Muslims of Hyderabad.

    PV, who always spoke less, listened patiently for an hour to Salahuddin Owaisi’s demands.

    When Salahuddin Owaisi finished, PV stated- Owaisi Sahab, you forgot to add one more thing.

    Salahuddin Owaisi enquired what was it?

    PV replied- that Nizam’s rule be brought back.

    GORKY- I have NO TIME for you guys. I have read your post of denial, distorting facts, hostility towards the majority (“Ayodhya is based on Myth”) and always passing the blame to others for your own plight. For too long.

    Once India surrendered to Muslim seperatism. We will never allow same type of politics to be played. If you continue to play, its you who will be living in the ghetto.

    Look at Uttar Pradesh, Bihar- the nerve center of Muslim Sepertism and Muslim league politics. BJP ruled these stated for very brief period. But you have average population who are continued to be hostile because of your politics.

    Today, UP/Bihar that was backbone of Muslim League can;t even have a Muslim Party. If you do that, BJP will sweep the election.

    This is the harsh reality. And continue to be as long as Muslim Seperatism continues to be played.