[khabor.com] Re: Mujib knew the difference between 'Lakh' and 'Million'.
--- In khabor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Javed Iqbal Kaleem
<javediqbalkaleem@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> Here is the refernce to my Quote. I had read this quote long time
> ago and remembered it was from Bible.And in fact it is, though
> partially.
>
The keyword is "though partially". The subterfuge is no more than a
desperate attempt by Ek Bal to gloss over his dishonesty.
Let's recapitulate. This is what Ek Bal wrote at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/khabor/message/12864
"Jesus Christ who is known for his very terse and pervading sayings
(regarded pearls of wisdom) had said: " The young leading the young
is like blind leading the blind, they both will fall into the ditch."
Ek Bal was trying to fraudulently convince his readers that his
grotesque theory on Bangabandhu was sanctified by the sayings of
Hazrat Isa. And this Ek Bal did even though he clearly knew that his
quote was not Hazrat Isa's but Lord Chesterfield's.
Now he says that only the second part of the quote was from the Bible.
The non-Biblical first part ("young leading the young") was the part
pivotal to Ek Bal's specious argument that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman fell
into the ditch because he was slave to young students. In other words,
Ek Bal was either deliberately dishonest or just plain ignorant of
scriptures when he fraudulently invoked Hazrat Isa's name.
>
> There are many sayings of Jesus prevalent in the society. Like "One
> should live a minute to minute life and let the future take care of
> itself!". Part of it is from Jesus and part by the author.. Such
> quotations are read and referred to by the educated, but are a bit
> above the comprehension of party rank and cadre especially when
> the party is AL, notorious for its low IQ:
>
No honest person puts words into another's mouth, least of all into
Hazrat Isa's mouth, to bolster his self-serving agenda. More
im****tantly, it is indeed a clear symptom of his low IQ that leaves
him convinced that he can hoodwink others with made-up quotations and
specious arguments. Ek Bal is so dense that he doesn't even recognize
that he is making a complete ass of himself by his dishonesty and
continuous stream of lies.
>
> Lord Chesterfield quoted it to his son. >
> "CONTENTS · AUTHOR INDEX · KEYWORD INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD
> Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. 1989.
> NER: 2087
> AUTHOR: Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th earl of Chesterfield (1694-1773)
> QUOTATION: The young leading the young, is like the blind leading
> the blind; they will both fall into the ditch.
> ATTRIBUTION: LORD CHESTERFIELD, letter to Philip Stanhope, his
> natural son, November 24, 1747."The Letters of Philip Dormer
> Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield, vol. 3, p. 1057 (1932).
>
> The second part of the sentence quotes the Bible, Matthew
> 15:14."
>
I am not surprised that Ek Bal's quotation comes from "A Dictionary of
Quotations". Ek Bal (one pubic hair) has not read the volume, "The
Letters of Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield".
If Ek Bal had read the volume, he would have come to know of Lord
Chesterfield's reputation and would have considered it blasphemy to
put the Lord's words fraudulently into Hazrat Isa's mouth.
This is how Lord Chesterfield has been described:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Dormer_Stanhope,_4th_Earl_of_Chesterfield
"Chesterfield was selfish, calculating and contemptuous; he was not
naturally generous, and he practiced dissimulation until it became
part of his nature".
Ek Bal committed blasphemy when he knowingly/unknowingly tried to pass
off the words of such a man as the words of Hazrat Isa. For all his
talk of piety, Ek Bal is a typical Jamaati who talks religion with an
ulterior motive.
>
> I have written it several times. But once again Zil ( the dark
> shadow) asks:
> "Who, then, is the patriot? General AAK Niazi? General Yahya Khan?"
>
Ek Bal (one pubic hair) calls Mujib a Mir Jafar at the drop of a hat.
But I have never ever heard him call the real traitors of 1971 as Mir
Jafars. In fact he insists on making the ridiculous argument that the
womanizing and drunkard Generals like Niazi, Farman Ali and Yahya Khan
were actually fighting to save a Muslim state! How much more dishonest
can one get?
>
> I have explained time and again that the army was not trained to
> handle political upheavel.
>
The Pakistan army was into politics right from the beginning. Ayub
Khan was very much a part of the political establishment long before
his "October Revolution" of 1958. And by 1970, the military had
completed a dozen years in complete control of Pakistan's politics.
Yes, Ayub Khan was a dictator as was Yahya Khan. And like dictators
the world over, they were all determined to dictate terms to the
people and their leaders. These Generals had institutionalized
dictator****p to the point that the pampered military had a vested
interest to make the people understand that they must defer to the
dictates of the military or else....
>
> It was not trained as a national army and was a colonial legacy.
>
Did the Indian army need any special training to evolve into a
national army?
No Indian General could have got away with a book like "Friends Not
Masters" that reeks so starkly of racist contempt. No Indian Brigadier
could have regaled his readers with stories of how a lowly havildar
had administered a resounding slap on the leader who had led his party
in the elections to win an absolute majority in the Assembly. No
Indian military officer would have dared to say, "We want Bengal, not
the Bengalis".
What the Pakistan military lacked was character. Needless to say, they
lacked in patriotism as well.
Pakistan is still under the heels of those characterless soldiers. As
Ayesha Siddiqa has pointed out, Pakistan is now a country of "mil
business".
>
> All the political parties, NAP, Muslim League, Pakistan Democratic
> Party, Nizame Islam Party and the Jamaate Islami, wanted
> justice and equal rights to ALL citizens,
>
NAP should not be bracketed with "Muslim League, Pakistan Democratic
Party, Nizame Islam Party and the Jamaate Islami". The latter had no
credibility with the people. That is why they were thoroughly rejected
in 1970 by the voters not just in East Pakistan but in West Pakistan
as well.
NAP was on the same page as Awami League. But it was cowed down by the
evil axis of Yahya Khan and Bhutto who served each other to prevent
the Assembly from proceeding with what it had been elected to do -
frame the Constitution and to form the government. Bhutto specifically
declared Punjab to be the bastion of power and threatened to break the
legs and arms of NAP members who would dare to cooperate with the
Awami League in framing the Constitution.
>
> but none of them deemed it fit to start a rebellion and ask for
> Indian sup****t.
>
That's the height of dishonesty. Parties that Ek Bal is referring to
(Muslim League, Pakistan Democratic Party, Nizame Islam Party and the
Jamaate Islami) were all rejected by the voters not only in East
Pakistan but in West Pakistan as well. Their sole goal was to seek
help of the powerbrokers (primarily the military) to gain access to
the corridors of power thru the back door. In fact, the military
obliged them. Yahya Khan had Awami League members expelled from the
Assembly to be replaced by "loyalists" from these parties of losers.
And it wasn't the Awami League members of the Assembly that needed to
start a "rebellion". They enjoyed an absolute majority in the
Assembly. They enjoyed the understanding and sup****t of parties like
the NAP. They had the mandate to frame the Constitution in accordance
with the voters' wish. And they had the numbers in the Assembly to
form a government.
It was the army that started the "rebellion". It saw only two options
- either the Assembly defers to the dictates of the army or else the
East Pakistanis are to be cowed down with wanton genocide/rapes.
Refugees escaping into India was seen as a step toward reducing East
Pakistanis to a manageable minority.
Awami League didn't have to beg for India's help. It is the army,
blinded by its selfishness and lack of patriotism, that gave India the
motive as well as the excuse. The 10 million refugees (more than the
entire population of Jammu & Kashmir at that point in time) were bound
to be seen as an invasion by India. Pakistan's military should have
known that India wasn't going to oblige it by feeding those refugees
for ever.
In the final analysis, the Pakistan military got shafted by its
success in killing and raping unarmed civilians in East Pakistan. It
began to view the Indian army with just as much contempt. It reasoned
that an Indian army that cannot even seize power from politicians
cannot possibly fight the Pakistan's macho soldiers.
Ek Bal, East Pakistanis didn't have to ask for India's help. It was
the sheer stupidity of the Mir Jafars in the Pakistan army that
tempted the Indians to come to East Pakistanis' aid. Wasn't General
AAK Niazi imprudently engaged in tempting and baiting the Indian army
right thru 1971? Here's a reference that might open Ek Bal's eyes in
spite of his extremely low IQ:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._A._K._Niazi
"According to Pakistani author, Akbar S. Ahmed, he had even hatched a
far-fetched plan to "cross into India and march up the Ganges and
capture Delhi and thus link up with Pakistan."[2] This he called the
"Niazi corridor theory" explaining "It was a corridor that the
Quaid-e-Azam demanded and I will obtain it by force of arms".[3] In a
plan he presented to the central government in June 1971, he stated in
his own words that "I would capture Agartala and a big chunk of Assam,
and develop multiple thrusts into Indian Bengal. We would cripple the
economy of Calcutta by blowing up bridges and sinking boats and ****ps
in Hooghly River and create panic amongst the civilians. One air raid
on Calcutta would set a sea of humanity in motion to get out of
Calcutta".[3][4] A journalist from Dawn had observed him thus: When I
last met him on September 30, 1971, at his force headquarters in
Kurmitola, he was full of beans. Thumping his thighs in his
characteristic, over-confident way, he said: "You just wait and see
that I am going to make it to Calcutta one day..."
>
> who incited the poor m***** and promised a heaven on earth, once
> the province secedes from the federation. This was obviously in
> league with RAW, which was instrumental in creating chaos and'
> upheavel in former East Pakistan.
>
If Ek Bal were not blinded by his Jamaati ideology he wouldn't have
had any difficulty in figuring out who are the ones that "incited the
poor m*****." The incitement started right from 1947. Jinnah and
Liaqat Ali Khan were very much into the incitement. The task was ably
taken over by Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan. Tikka Khan, Niazi and Farman
Ali all continued with taunting, tormenting, killing and raping the
poor m***** all for the purpose of ensuring the primacy of the
military's dictates.
It wasn't the RAW but Pakistan's army that conspired to keep East
Pakistan permanently powerless. Yahya Khan had hoped for a fragmented
Assembly when he allowed the elections. To his consternation, Awami
League won absolute majority on its own. To compound the problem for
the military (and for losers like the Jamaatis), NAP was on the same
page as the Awami League. It was the military that created the chaos
and the upheaval to prevent the Assembly from doing its job, namely,
framing the Constitution and forming the government. It was the Mir
Jafars in the military that decided that they would rather risk the
expulsion of the majority East Pakistanis from the country than allow
democracy to take hold.
>
> Was the collective conscience of all political parties was wrong
> and only AL was on the right path?.
>
Which parties? The ones like Jamaate Islami that were rejected by
voters in East Pakistan and West Pakistan alike? And do Jamaatis have
a conscience? And how can the "collective conscience" of the loser
Jamaatis possibly be more right than the collective conscience of the
voters who elected the Assembly members?
>
> It succeeded in secding from Pakistan, and got what it wanted at
> all costs, that is right to rule. But it miserably failed
> in controlling its officials to rob the people.
>
Pakistan did come into being in 1947. But aren't Pakistanis still
being robbed by what Dr. Ayeasha Siddiqa has referred to as "mil
business"? Haven't the military officers in Pakistan emerged as the
neo-feudals of the land? Haven't they thwarted all attempts at land
reforms? But does that mean India has the right to deride the 1947
partition?
>
> They not only looted the West Pakistani citizens living in East
> Pakistan, but missed no op****tunity in minting money at the cost of
> poor m*****.
>
In the aftermath of the 1947 partition, Gandhi forced the Indian
government to parting with Pakistan's share of the assets. And what
did the Pakistan government do after the partition of 1971? To this
day it has not bothered to transfer to Bangladesh its share of assets.
To compound the crime, Pakistan's military has emerged as the largest
body of organized crime in the country.
So, Ek Bal, you have a better case of deriding the 1947 partition than
deriding the 1971 partition.
> No wonder few tears were shed when its government was overthrown
> and Shaikh Mujib was punished for his treachery.
>
> The secular minded black hearted (shadowed) persons cannot
> understand that Shah Neamatullah Wali had predicted two centuries
> back the stupidity of breaking away from a Muslim country and
> equated it with death. No wonder, God Almighty punished all the 3
> Characters involved in breaking up Pakistan with death, along with
> their offshoots. Bhutto, Indira and Mujib all were mercilessly
> killed, as well as their second generation. God's revenge often
> continues up to four generations.
>
Ek Bal, you are a vengeful idiot. Do you know that the Prophet's
son-in-law was assassinated and that his grandsons were mercilessly
murdered? Was that God's revenge too? Try to exercise whatever little
brain you have before giving vent to your ungodly anger in such an
inappropriate manner.
Jesus was executed. So was Gandhi. So was Martin Luther King. But only
an idiot would try to correlate those murders with Allah's wrath.
Furthermore, the death of Indira, Mujib and Bhutto were under very
different cir***stances with very different consequences.
Indira was given a state funeral and her assassins died on the gallows
after convictions for murder. Indira is still an influential name in
India. And it is her party that leads the UPA coalition that runs the
government in India some 3 decades after her assassination.
Mujib has been vindicated by history. He is officially recognized as
the Father of the Nation. Mujib's murderers were convicted in a court
of law and are on the death row. Mujib's party remains a major player
in Bangladesh politics more than 3 decades after Mujib's murder. In
fact the party was the single largest vote-getter in each of the 3
elections that were held after General Ershad's ouster.
Bhutto's murderer's were never brought to justice and never will be.
That's because Pakistan's military has managed to institutionalize its
primacy at the expense of the common men's. But it is a measure of
vindication that it is Bhutto's party that remains the single-largest
vote-getter in Pakistan. In fact, PPP is leading the coalition that
has formed the current government.
Contrast this with losers like the Jamaate Islami. In 2002, it won a
significant presence in the Assembly but only because it got General
Musharraf to rig the elections. In 2007 when Musharraf was barred by
US from the 2002-style massive rigging, Jamaate Islami no longer
commands a significant presence in the Assembly.
Ek Bal (one pubic hair) might still feel like gloating about the
murders of Mujib and Bhutto. But if he studies history, he'll see that
leaders who had successfully led people's movements were not
necessarily successful at leading governments. Not everyone can be a
Nehru. Soekarno, Nkrumah, Ben Bella and Mugabe had all led people's
movement. But they were all downright failures in leading a
government. But that in no way takes away from their achievement as
people's leaders.
|
