it will be like that except 750 words.

Here’s a taste:

wteverz InDia sux eggs cuz its lyk sooo stpd n the kds r sooo homelss n stff n nehr cn go fuk hmslf.

1.) why do you think he was pathetic? 2.) why does his size matter?

Nehru was indeed a pathetic little man. It would be a travesty to depict him as noble.

aight anu 1st of all if operation blustar happened 2 hindus u wudnt say shit if yer most sacred asthan got destroyed u wud care on topa tha avg person sikh or hindu was terrified. my mom tells me about how sikh boys esp inncoent were abducted n killed. n many hindues outside of blustar outside of punjab esp delhi massacerd sikhs how u explain tha dey wer no better den da militants.

da militants cause was right way of gettin der wuz wrong thas wat every1 says. n itz true from wat i hear i wasn’t around o i can’t fully judge. I can say tha it fuckin pisses me off 2 no da army disgraced it lyk tha w/ ppl walkn in der shoes drinkin n smokin inside it. I tell u rite no doubt i give my life for ma ppl. I am Punjabi n Sikh 1st Indian n Canadian Citizen second.

cuz da government can turn on u but yer ppl wont. cuz if dey did ud alrdy b dead.

on top many sikhs regind cuz of it n many measures were takn cuz majority of army wuz sikh n punjabi. (30 % sikh more punjabi if u include all religion) now dey made it % cuz dey found out hard way not smart 2 mess w/ punjabiz wen we’re majority in army. Also ppl lyk KPS Gill turned on der own ppl thas y dey got killed. u never i mean NEVER turn on yer own ppl no mata wat. EVER.

basically it wuz a tragedy on more den 1 side n avg person wuz inncent n caught up in it all religons. ppl on 1 side had militants come 2 house @ night askin 4 roti or dey wud kill u cuz u cant fight on empty stomach. If u gav dem it. Popo come n arrest sayn ur a militant.

n how can u encourage an army destroyin n killin lyk tha? me seein da shit i seen n doin wat i have done wudnt say tha. no1 wud. Also yo mayb 4 once da hindu minority got treated lyk da minorites every wer else in india get treated lyk. Shit. thas da way it is.

–> So, Jinnah, whose driving aim was the creation of Independent state for muslims after discarding the option of accomodation within a secular framework, was speaking with a forked tongue when he described the new nation as accomodating all religions ? I can understand why Indians shouldnt deny the significance of these words. It shows that politicians, secular or religious fundie, switch their positions all the time. Only here, he chose to play with religion and a huge number of people paid with their lives for his politics.

The force of disagreement was precisely because they shared many premises, yet, arrived at such different conclusions.…..

–> They shared many premises ? What about the important premise that it is possible to accomodate all religions within a secular state ? Pakistan’s creation is, in my understanding, the triumph of religious exclusivity over secular ideal.

But to do this, we have to be willing to rewrite the cartoon books of our history.

–> I just wish this guy doesnt get to rewrite history. We will then have a true cartoon book.

Who could, in fact, legitimately represent, who spoke for whose interests, who stood to gain or lose? Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehru, Ambedkar, Master Tara Singh: all were in the race to be the spokesman of the people, “their” people. –> Great example of muddle headed equivalence if ever there was one. It is a travesty that the arguments of Nehru towards a secular society that treats “all ” people the same irrespective of their religion is in the same level as the (poisonous) arguments of Jinnah or Dara Singh or Mahasabha crowd.

At a moment when the Congress should be re-examining its political instincts and scrutinising its intellectual inheritance, it chose instead merely to unthinkingly repeat nursery school wisdom.

–> Pre-empt by casting the other side as unthinking before they call you (deservedly) unthinking. Nice strategy, though.

–> How disingenuous can one get ? To my recollection, Muslim League was explicit in its demand for an independent state for India’s muslims. If they werent intending for an independent state for India’s muslims, what prevented them from working within a constitutional framework and addressing the needs for muslims ? There were people who went that route (Azad, for one). Especially when the direction of Congress leaders at the time was towards inclusiveness(with exceptions of course) at that time.

“I told them of the danger that a Hindu empire would repress for the Middle-East and and assured them that Pakistan would tender co-operation to all nations struggling for freedom without consideration of race or colour…If a Hindu empire is achieved, it would mean the end of Islam in India, and even in other Muslim countries. There is no doubt that spiritual and religious ties bind us inexorably with Egypt. If we were drowned all will be drowned.”