What the f*ck is Pakistan/PTI doing

56 Comments

I like Pakistani shows but this is just a whole load of bullocks. Censoring the most interesting and thought provoking…

Posted by Vidhi Lalchand on Thursday, September 6, 2018

Image may contain: text

Vidhi pointed me to this but I am simply shocked by the f*cked up PTI agenda. Yet again Pakistan is treading on the path of self-destruction.

I have noticed that Sunoo Chanda is a bit “fast”; bit of touching by Farhan Saeed and Iqra Aziz, some simmering moments.

This is what happens when a culture starts defaming its martyrs to freedom like Qandeel Baloch.

I’m shocked and angry with the retrograde, shitty attitude by the Pakistani authorities. ISI have really let the Ummah down; we might just get kicked out of Turan because of this!

0

56 Replies to “What the f*ck is Pakistan/PTI doing”

  1. ‘alien culture/fictional society’

    Any specific provocation?

    I have to say though Indian period dramas always involve lightly dressed women who expose their mid-riffs and a lot of their upper bodies. This is supposed to be realistic and I am thankful for that. Lol. Even though the royal/elite women depicted in these stories were in all likelihood veiled (and fully clothed) in public. There was a taboo on looking at the faces of unrelated women. This even comes up as a plot point sometimes – Laxman doesn’t know how to describe Sita (who is missing) because he has only seen her feet.

    1. D, there is an important point about Lakshman. Woman were free to dress colorfully and fashionably as Sita was asked to do by her mothers-in-law. But men choose not to look. This played out with Tara (who was slightly drunk) and Lakshman later on too. Lakshman was very respectful of Tara.

      In other words woman dressed as woman wished to dress. Men simply didn’t look. Visa versa was also true. Men sometimes left most of their bodies uncovered. Girls “CHOSE” not to look.

      Men and woman, boys and girls would take baths in the lake or river close to each other. They chose not to look. Krishna took a bath close to the Gopis in the Bhagavatam.

      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      Kabir,
      I don’t like the whole “progressive” thing either. India is Indian, not western. Pakistan was very similar to India until 1947. The divergence since continues to grow. Pakistan can choose to embrace her pre 1947 identity or not. The choice is hers.

      1. Pakistan is a Muslim country. That is the difference.

        Thank you for allowing us to define our own culture and values (not that we needed your permission). That is part of the whole reason we wanted independence.

  2. I think censorship of TV dramas is stupid but the whole “progressive India” “backward Pakistan” thing is a bit much. Seems like an easy way to score anti-Pakistan points.

    1. No it’s not – it’s a stark contrast that on the day India decriminalises homosexuality (under a Modi govt), Pakistan is sending directives to kill its own industry.

      1. Just a minor detail; the Modi government did not decriminalize homosexuality. The supreme court did after a 7-8 year long case after a rollback of Delhi state court rollback of criminalization. There is a difference.

      2. Zack,

        With due respect, I find phrases like “lest we forget they operate in Islamic chains” offensive as a Pakistani. It shows a bit of an Indian superiority complex and also a bit of an anti-Islam attitude.

        As I said censoring dramas is stupid and a lot of Pakistanis are not happy about it. However, it also has to be said that a lot of Pakistani dramas are total bakwaas.

        1. What Vidhi said was correct and incisive. Pakistanis should be offended by what the censor board has written rather than the thoughts of an Indian scientist with a Turanian husband.

          Liberal Muslims are more offended when Islam is insulted then when liberalism is impugned; that is why their liberalism is skin-deep. It’s not the genuine article.

          Qandeel Baloch was martyred in Islamic chains.

          I’m fighting a two-flank war here; defending our sacred Perso-Arabic Urdu High Culture but at the same time calling out retrograde practises.

          As an aside Pakistani dramas are extraordinarily good. You should watch sunoo chanda

          1. Well, I don’t like language like “Islamic chains”. Especially when it comes from a non-Muslim. It seems to come from a place of mild Islamophobia. I also don’t like Indians taking potshots at Pakistan. We will have to agree to disagree.

            I have watched Pakistani dramas. I used to love “Humsafar”. But I’m with the censor board on this at least that most Pakistani dramas are nonsense. I don’t think PEMRA should be wasting their time on this though.

          2. Btw, I had told you earlier that PTI was a right-wing party but you were super impressed by “Imran bhai”. They have some strange ideas about culture. See also the remarks Punjab’s Culture Minister made about film posters and theatre actresses.

            The main thing is that they have been in power for two weeks. This is not the kind of stuff they should waste their time on.

  3. AAren’t you the guy who was vehemently demanding just a few weeks ago that Dalrymple, some Italian artist, etc etc people should be banned in India because they defamed Indian Izzat?

  4. Lakshman generally didn’t look at anyone in the face, male or female. He use to look down while walking and working in the world. Lakshman use to see all through his divine inner sight (third eye) and permanently experience divine bliss. Laskhman was the epitome of humility and modesty. This is one of the things that made Laskhman unique, even for his time. Laskhman’s example transformed the broader Arya Varsha society during and after his life. People around the world are still inspired by his example. [And the example of his brothers such as Hanuman.]

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Not to say that Lakshman was the only example. Hanuman showed an outwardly different perfect example and that was also divine. Hanuman saw everyone, male and female (regardless of their dress or lack thereof), and experienced only the divine. Hanuman never hesitated to carry (which involves touch) any of his mothers. Every girl was Hanuman’s mother. Every girl was the divine mother.

    Some prefer Lakshman’s example and some prefer Hanuman’s example. To each their own. Live and let live. This is the beauty of Sanathana Dharma.

    1. But Dalrymple is not banned in India, also i have read his books, he plays more “safe” than you think. Always on the right side of law, very mainstream ,not a rebel.

        1. Should read Ram Guha on him. Said that when he first met Dalrymple, he acted like a supercilious India-expert and yet didn’t even know who Ambedkar was.

          Indians seriously fetishize gorey angrez, from the most left-liberal to the far right. 200 years of being lorded over doesn’t just evapourate in a few decades.

          1. Come on people, a lack of knowledge in a particular area does not prevent one in writing books on another. Brown people can write on whites, as whites can write on Brown people. Let us stop this nonsense.

            Zack, read the 15 part encyclopedia Mundari that Jean Baptiste Hoffman of Belgium and Germany wrote on Mundas, and then tell me why a white man cannot write about Mundas; read Chagnon on Yanomami and tell me why he cannot write on Amerindians (Razib please do not comment on this last item).

          2. The Ramachandra Guha comment on Dalrymple was one off; not that Guha hated Dalrymple, In some bizarre moment, Dalrymple said that a large number of Indian-born English writers such as Pankaj Mishra and I forget who else (may be Arundhathi) were educated in boarding schools, and relocated to UK/US and published Indian-oriented books. Dalrymple felt that these authors are not representative of the Indian literary milieu.

            Guha tore into this, as he was himself a Doon alumni. Intra-author fracas are a feature, not a bug, and the best avoided by laymen. It goes without saying that anyone can write about anything, and exactly, how are you going to stop this?

          3. @Vijay

            Not about skin tone. I am specifically talking about Dalrymple. Andre Beteille is white, so is Jean Dreze. Yet nobody would question their expertise on Indian socio-economic condition.

            Besides, Indians do tend to fetishize white Englishmen. It has worn off a little now, but still fairly common. I have heard even card-carrying RSS members privately admit that the Brits are a “genetically superior” race. The inferiority complex is v deep rooted and some intellectuals, carrying the patina of the Raj, like Mr Dalrymple make a good use of it to sell themselves to us.

            BTW Indians have written good books (fact/fiction) on Whites. One of my all time favourites is Vikram Seth’s “An Equal Music” centred around Vienna.

          4. slapstick

            I never mentioned anything about white people being better, just anyone can write on anyone. Second, I do not get bringing Jean Dreze and andre Betteile as the better of Dalrymple.

            Dalrymple is a historian focused, not on Mughal period, but post-Aurgangzeb and before the arrival of the the British Govt.

            Jean Dreze is a development economist. The example is a pretty bad one because India has too many development economists and not enough macro. A number of policy prescriptions of J.D comes straight out of a socialist 1950s script. The ideas of JD are not uniformly accepted. While ration shops and public works paying locals appear to be a bright idea, they are not a solution.

            Andre Betteile, the sociologist, was born, raised and worked entirely in India by a French father.

            How can we compare these three as examples of white men that may be superior or inferior to equivalent brown men?

            Nobody is fettishizing Dalrymple; only zack is, calling him the authority on Mughals, which I believe comes from not reading his books on history. The six mughal emperors that we generally care about, are only tangentially mentioned in his works, he focuses primarily on what happened after Aurangazeb.

            The entire issue, I believe, is people google something and just run through ideas randomly.

        2. Because most of those 1.5 billion South Asians have not bothered to learn Persian and Urdu and work in the archives with original documents.

        3. I am a Dalrymple fan. I think “The Last Mughal” and “The Return of the King” are wonderful books.

          Zack doesn’t have to like him, but like Vijay, I don’t understand the Dalrymple hatred.

          1. I don’t hate Dalyrymple but he’s appropriated a role that should ideally be taken as a desi.

            He’s the go-to guy in British media to understand “Indian history.” It’s embedded in Britain and a rather unapologetic view towards colonialism.

            I should link to the Shashank Tharoor video about colonialism..

          2. Dalrymple is the “go-to guy” on Indian history because he has done a lot of work on this. There’s nothing to stop more desis from becoming historians. But they are too busy doing engineering.

    2. There is a significant difference between the two.

      Dalrymple and the Italian hunger artist are alien to our region. It’s a different discourse and they should approach it with respect.

      I don’t mind Indians criticising Pakistan because there is a sense of commonality and affinity; ultimately we blend into one another..

      1. I fully agree. Any brown immigrant in the west who dares to malign, ridicule western society should be immediately expelled. After all, brown people are fully formed human beings, they are not forever adolescents who must be tolerated with different standards than responsible adults.

          1. I again fully concur. That’s why no Muslim of Muglai, Iranian, Turkik or Arab ancestry must not be allowed to say anything disparaging about India. No Turks must be allowed to criticize anything to do about Eastern Europe or Middle Eaast excepting Anatolia (whoa! Turks even conquered Anatolia just 700 years ago coming from Central Asia! This makes it a little bit tricky). Anyhow, ex-conquerers can never again disparage the previous conquered. And Muglai privilege must be ended once and forever.

          2. This is my last comment on this, and I do not understand why you are dying on this hill.

            Dalrymple, as a historian, has focused on the period after 1707, but before 1859, and focuses on the end of the Mughal era and beginning of the transfer of power from east India Company to the British. He has also written a number of travelogs and novels. His best book, is actually on eastern Christians in Byzantium and what happened to them.

            There has not been a systematic study of Indian history of that era, which in any even is vast. He has focused entirely on the failing post-Aurangzeb Mughals and rise of the British. He did not divide and conquer anyone. His lack of knowledge re: Ambedkar is not surprising, he focused on 1700-1859 period.

            There is a large amount of historical output from India post 1912. The field is vast enough that we can entertain a million historians, from India and abroad. search of knowledge is not partitioned by race and country.

          3. “we became Indians”. A great many number of Indians disagree. They think the Mugal descendents remain a large alien section whose culture and loyality is oreiented out of India into the west. Doesn’t those people’s, who have been oppressed by aliens for thousands of years, feelings count also?

          4. “We became Indians”
            Telling insight into the minds of middle/upper class Muslims who fancy themselves as descendants of medieval conquerors when most of them are mere descendants of converts for the most part, but with a bit of foreign blood thrown in.

          5. “They’re wrong; u may as well tell them to destroy the Taj..” – Yes, they are wrong and you are right! As for the Taj, there is definitely a great Social Justice case for demolishing the Taj to smithereens. It was built by a foreign regime that exorbiently expropriated money from milions of very poor workers and farmers to finance the ultimate imperial luxury (Folly) showcase. It was built on backbreaking works of thousands of forced laborers, many of whom persihed. It is a proud and conspicuous symbol of that imperial power. There are many people demanding this or that monument be removed in the West because of the opressive history. A similar case can easily be made for the Taj.

          6. Do you know how much tourist revenue the Taj brings India?

            If Indians don’t want it, please send it to Pakistan, where it will be much appreciated.

  5. I think I am with Shafiq R.

    Sorry for the dumb questions:

    “Dalrymple, Italian hunger artist”
    Why are they controversial?
    How are they banned in India (are you sure they are banned? maybe they are not banned)?

    Gandhi/Nehru/Ambedkar et all make a number of concessions to Islamists in return for peace. These restricted the freedom of art and thought of Indian muslims and all Indians (which is de facto siding with Islamists against good reasonable muslims). Sadly some nonmuslims have started using these stupid clauses in the law. And when they are questioned they say “Islamists are using it” as if that justifies them doing the same.

    It is time to end all this nonsense for good and return to freedom of speech in India . . . as was the case before the Islamist invasion.

    Four ways India needs to stop backing Islamists against good reasonable muslims in return for “peace”:
    –end talat talat talat
    –reform shariah law that oppresses muslim Indian females
    –end section 377
    –end restrictions on free speech

  6. Oh come one Zack, Everyone should be free to write/comment about anything. We can have issues with what they write and not “how dare they write ” .

    1. Oh no Mr Razib Khan, why did I happen to check out Brown Pundits at this very moment that you have written the above comment? (The truth of the matter is that I have become quite addicted to reading Brown Pundits lol)

      Kolaver̲i is a Tamil verb-noun compound noun literally meaning ‘madness/craziness to kill’, i.e. ‘desire to kill’, perhaps also ‘obsession’, etc.: kola is the infinitive form, ‘to kill’, of the verb kol, ‘kill’ and ver̲i means ‘madness’, ‘insanity’, etc.

      Popularised all over the world because of the following English-mixed Tamil song:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR12Z8f1Dh8

  7. “We became Indian..”

    I think there is a spectrum here. One must not be so dismissive about the Morocco to Pakistan feeling, especially among Pakistani Muslims, most of whom have never met a Hindu or encountered any aspect of Hinduism. I think a future in which the Pakistani elite is integrated into a Morocco to Pakistan axis is not far fetched. The cultural elements, cuisine, architecture, dress and literary/poetic traditions do show a degree of continuity in this axis.

    However, among the Muslims in India today, this statement is very true. Their participation in the Independence Movement and development of post-independence Indian law, culture, economy and politics does tie them to India in a very different way from the older notions of being conquerors. An identification with India based on my forefathers conquered this place and built foreign architecture with the taxes, is very different from my forefathers resisted colonialism, shaped and signed the liberal Constitution and contributed to the plural cultural and political life of the Republic of India.

    Indian Muslims thus have a narrative of belonging to India that Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims dont. When they access the achievements of the Mughal or other medieval Indian empires, their mindset is one of a continuum of history, aggregating influences and experiences, rather than the we are different, special and better mindset. This mindset is what allows a Masoom Raza to liberally use words like zindagi and dastaan in the dialogue for Mahabharat.

    1. Pakistan is a South Asian country and we will remain a South Asian country. We can identify with the Mughals and other parts of pre-1947 “Indian” history while still appreciating the fact that we are a sovereign nation.

      Part of the problem is that the same term is being used for the Republic of India and the larger pre-1947 area. That’s why Quaid-e-Azam wanted India to call itself “Hindustan” or “Bharat” or whatever else, so that the confusion would not arise.

      1. It is incorrect to say that Pakistanis cannot or do not access Mughal history because it is considered part of Indian history. I think it has more to do with the fact that the center of the Mughal empire was located in North India, and so the various tribes and clans that make up Pakistan have different feelings for that era as compared to the populations at the centre of the empire.

        In any case, my point was about the approach or ‘nazariya’ taken while accessing a certain history. Indian Muslims see the Mughal Empire as a particular period of Indian history when Islamicate cultural influence was at its peak. They dont need to think beyond territory to engage with it, in fact the territorial reality demands it. OTOH, Pakistani Muslims necessarily have to take a more abstract religious route to identify with that dynasty, and even then trying to see the Mughals detached from the former and latter currents of Indian history is quite limiting.

        1. I’m a Pakistani. I have nothing in common with Morocco other than Islam. I am a South Asian and my country is a South Asian country.

Comments are closed.