The confused case of a ‘liberal’ Pakistani

Published: December 6, 2014
SHARES
Email

The fact that delusions of nationalism and religion not only need to be separated from the state, but eliminated altogether, is never discussed.

As the claws of fanaticism have dug deeper in our skin during the last one decade, a parallel phenomenon has taken place among some sections of Pakistan’s urban youth – a shift towards liberalism.

In the simplest of terms, the components of liberalism fly the flag of equality and freedom. The whole concept revolves around civil liberties and rights. To a huge chunk sick of conservatism, liberals provide a platform that enables social change and political reform. Not a bad idea looking at the current state of bomb-wrapped, blood-spluttering affairs in Pakistan.

What is the problem then?

The problem is the foundation of liberalism, not only in Pakistan, but globally.

The Pakistani liberal carries a stupendously thin worldview of man and society. A proponent of free will and choice, he cries foul whenever someone brings an opposing view forward, however true it may be. This very thinness in this understanding of society is deemed to be the prime requirement of peaceful coexistence. Whoever attempts to thicken these assumptions is immediately disposed to the corner of authoritarianism. In short, the basic urge of the Pakistani liberal is to place himself on a higher echelon, just like his conservative counterparts, and attempt to play guardian of the free world.

But what’s most important is the prime focus of the Pakistan liberal in the belief of individual gratification and a society where every man is free to pursue this very individual gratification. It is a society which accepts the class difference as natural, a society where economic freewill runs through our veins in the form of unregulated capitalism and a society which will eventually burst at its seams and lead to anarchy.

It’s ironic that the liberal is a proponent of pluralism, yet makes sweeping judgements about the past, present and future. There is a massive tendency to be liberal for the sake of being liberal, without analysing and reading into matters. Positions of neutrality are most common with liberals, taken in the name of individual freedom and choice.

What about the rest of the society then?

There is always an effort, and a massive one at that, to showcase a deep rooted concern for the lower echelons of society. Corporate social responsibility is splashed across capitalist screens, the faded flags of equality and freedom soar high, but that’s the end of that. When all is said and done, a liberal is content when his personal space remains in order.

Another recent development among Pakistani liberals is to advocate their beliefs in the name of change, societal revamp, and most laughingly, left-wing politics. This is the classic portrait of liberalism across the globe – harp on about the left, but practice on the right.

Clichés about tolerance and freedom are found in abundance on liberal tongues. What is not found in abundance, however, is an understanding of how they attempt to achieve hollow missions of tolerance, freedom and change while using the same foundations that gave them the gift of intolerance, captivity and preservation. The fact that the free market is essentially the biggest hurdle in actual freedom is never discussed. The fact that delusions of nationalism and religion not only need to be separated from the state, but eliminated altogether, is never discussed. The fact that class conflict in Pakistan is so obvious to the naked eye that it would serve as economic pornography to the likes of Friedman, is never discussed. The fact that the working class is the actual proponent of social change is never discussed. The fact that the root of all that is wrong with us essentially boils down to neoliberalism, is again, never discussed.

What is discussed instead is the grotesque version of freedom without regard for the rest of society.

What is discussed is the individual – the mind numbing idiot in pursuit of solo contentment.

What is discussed is the status quo. Not change.

salman Zafar

Salman Zafar

The writer works in the Education Sector and tweets as @salmanzafar1985 (twitter.com/salmanzafar1985)

The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of The Express Tribune.

  • Humanist

    Wow. The whole article was brilliantly written. The author clearly has a grasp of NOTHINGRecommend

  • Muhammed Usama Aziz

    Very well writtten!!Recommend

  • wb

    “As the claws of fanaticism have dug deeper in our skin during the last one decade”

    Claws of fanaticism dug deep into the flesh of the Muslims of Indian subcontinent in 1940.

    To claim that it started a decade ago is exhibiting a total lack of history.
    Recommend

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    I hope your article gets nominated for curriculum in Oxford. It is a clear example of “How NOT to write and article”. Also it will be a strong contender in “How NOT to do research” course. The great nugget of general knowledge that Fanaticism was coming up in 2000’s and the new fact that Pakistani society accepts diversity are only some of the great departures from reality in these few lines. My advice is that this should be moved to poetic license as an imaginary piece.Recommend

  • Muhammad

    ‘Pakistan’ is a regressive idea in itself. Liberalism in this country is to dilute her raison d’etre. That is to bring her closer to her oft forgotten Indianness. Make Radcliffe award as irrelevant as possible.Recommend

  • That was an extremely shallow understanding of liberalism. For one, the author confused liberal emphasis on civil and political rights with economic and social liberalism. For another, he failed to take into account the many and varied cases of liberal democratic welfare states around the world who have flourished by respecting both the economic and civil rights of their people. The writer sounds more like a “communitarian” with the whole thin/thick reference. But that’s a slippery slope to using oxymorons like “liberal fascism” and what not. Recommend

  • Faraz Talat

    It’s an angry rant that blows past you like a dusty gale, failing to anchor itself to reality with examples, statistics or even plain facts.

    Here are three major problems with your rant:

    – Reductionism: For your convenience, you speak of “liberal” as a monolith, with no individual differences in attitudes and practical dealings. The “liberal” just wants to place himself on a higher echelon. The “liberal” is content as long as his/her personal space is in order.

    – Mistaking annoyance for ‘intolerance’: I might get upset if a conservative were to say something starkly sexist or homophobic. Worst case scenario, he’d get yelled at. But that does not mean I “cry foul” about his freedom to express himself. ‘Peaceful coexistence’ doesn’t mean I cannot challenge ideologies I find problematic. You’re thinking ‘conformism’.

    – Redundancy: Attacking liberals is fun and easy. You won’t find terms like “conservative fascist” or “pseudo-conservative” or “bloody conservative” floating around a lot. Liberals get screamed at for talking about equality and not doing anything, but conservatives hardly get criticized for downright antagonizing social progress. Why not? Liberal bashing wins easy applause. Ask Imran Khan.Recommend

  • Saad

    You’ve read too much and understood nothing.Recommend

  • Asad

    To ask for an independent state where our rights would be respected is not fanaticism.

    A more factually correct statement would be that “Claws of fanaticism dug deep into the flesh of the Muslims of Indian subcontinent ” during the Afghan Jihad against the Soviets when they were armed and funded by various powers.Recommend

  • I am a Khan

    In Pakistan the word ‘liberal’ has become synonymous with ‘anti-islam’. That’s the problem. You have to define the word ‘liberal’ first. If ‘Liberal’ means being just, being honest, feeding the poor, respecting the rights of minorities, being polite and simple in day to day dealings, then Islam teaches all of that in the Quran and Sunnah and every muslim should be liberal. But if ‘liberal’ means wearing revealing clothes, drinking wine, dancing in clubs, overspeeding in flashy cars, keeping guns and taking hard drugs, then Islam is against all of such excesses and no muslim should be a liberal. hope this explanation helps.Recommend

  • waffen ss

    Absolutely Nailed it….now wait for the ‘holier than thou’ liberal ‘ansturm’Recommend

  • Ammar

    What is the point of the article? Reading your article on ‘liberls’ feels like listening to Junaid Jamshed’s on women. Recommend

  • Ernest Dempsey

    It’s an important and interesting topic, though the article suffers from lack of focus and stuffing too many claims and views in there. But you put it very tersely in “This is the classic portrait of liberalism across the globe – harp on about the left, but practice on the right.” And that is the problem I do observe in and out of Pakistan. And it brings back the depiction of the state of affairs in Orwell’s “Animal Farm” – the advocates of change clinging to the pillars of the status quo.Recommend

  • Manto

    Pretentious and terrible writing. All you did was screech out insults without backing up a single thing you say with evidence.Recommend

  • wb

    “To ask for an independent state where our rights would be respected is not fanaticism.”

    No sir. That’s not true. Pakistan was not created because their rights wouldn’t be preserved. Pakistan was created because of their hatred for the other religions. It was created because Muslims couldn’t live with others.

    Now look at your grand Pakistan: everyday you’re killing each other.

    Congrats on getting a land that respects your rights.Recommend

  • wb

    Well, the article is still better than your hundred silly comments.Recommend

  • siesmann

    Liberal doesn’t force his views on people,but express them without fear because he is for tolerance rather than for restrictions.Often he is for all including the minority and female views that is anathema to conservatives.Conservatives use excuse of culture to further their restrictive agenda,whereas liberal let them express their views .however wrong.It is ridiculous to label liberalism as fascist ,when everybody can see that conservatism is so.Conservative kills for his views,liberal counters them with reason and rationality.Recommend

  • nishantsirohi123

    the reason why most of the ” privileged youth” of Pakistan is confused because they grew up with the same hate filled history that has been fabricated in post Bhutto era, but being privileged they did get access to the world view.
    so it strikes them but the result is mixed.
    second is indeed the class divide, the privileged class kids have a different outlook to the problems of the country. The chaos in Karachi for them is traffic jams and getting their iPhone mugged. The children are not be blamed for being born in a privileged family, however their view of the nation is different.
    but what is the conclusion, the country is in doldrums and the longer it stays that way, the more confused the society shall becomeRecommend

  • nishantsirohi123

    being liberal is not anti Islam, but it is rather anti-mullah, where visiting a marriage of a non muslim is haram, where everyone, from the Christian sweeper to film and tv actors all are enemies of islam, where drinking shezan juice reduces your chances of reaching heaven.
    whatever happened to religion being personal, unfortunately for the fanatics you are not a muslim unless you you display it every 2nd minute.
    you should not be upset as to turn off ur pc after seeing the “anti islamik video on youtube” , you should be able to form angry mobs and burn the first car you see on the roadRecommend

  • tungi

    liberal proud and hate mullahismRecommend

  • Moiz Omar

    This is probably the most ignorant article I have ever read on the blogs of Express Tribune.Recommend

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    while you just attacked the article in the comment below mine. A very crass and idiotic personal attack only because every time we debate or argue I come up on the top and you are shamefully beaten. Having gotten your handed to you on a silver platter now you want to just go out and attack me, how utterly shameful.
    Had you been arguing in favor of the article this may have been justified, but as you are not, this is just your jealousy pouring out of you. Don’t worry, next time we debate an issue I will go easy on you and perhaps I may not utterly humiliate you like the last time.
    (Mods, you have allowed his idiotic comment through the censors, I hope my reply is let through too)Recommend

  • Salman

    Thank you for adding weight to my point.

    I would argue, but since your knowledge of political science is virtually non-existent, the only thing i have to say to you is this : The world is not black and white. The world is not divided between Liberals and Conservatives only.

    The next time you choose to discuss Liberalism, Conservatism, Fascism or multiple other ideologies, i suggest you read history and some theory. It would save you the embarrassment of coming across as a run of the mill inflated chest bourgeois liberal know-it-all.Recommend

  • Salman

    The problem with Liberalism, for large parts, has to do with Economics. The free market and Private property, and the constant support for this system feeding on unrelenting oppression and exploitation.Recommend

  • Asad

    “Pakistan was created because of their hatred for the other religions.”

    The only hatred around here is your own. You conveniently ignored my rebuttal of your incorrect statement about when the growth of fanaticism and militancy rose.

    As for your hatred of Pakistan I would advise you to learn from neutral sources instead of relying on biased nationalist authors. After all it was an Indian (and a BJP member at that) who said:

    “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.” L K Advani

    So much for harted of other religions:)Recommend

  • wb

    There is nothing crass or idiotic in my comment. I have stated the fact that you keep lying always and believe that your lies are some how logical.

    Why should I be jealous of you? Because you went to Oxford and Harvard and yet can’t construct one logical argument? LOLRecommend

  • Tariq Khan

    Well written, author has grasp of fundamentals. We are passing through a phase of hollow politics with cheap slogans against corruptions and political opponents without referring to basics such as the social distortions of free market, the deficient and imbalanced social power structure and social tyranny of religious and traditional types against free thought,.Neither are we talking about governmental instructional reforms (Civil service, military and judiciary) though less important but very much possible. Mediocrity and superficiality have taken over the mainstream like ever, ironically the little in depth debate that we had once is gone. once again good jobRecommend

  • siesmann

    There is one big difference.Conservatives kill and bomb people holding opposite views.Recommend

  • siesmann

    How convenient to always blame “various powers”.Pakistanis always pretend that it has no stake in fighting the soviets.To ignore a belligerent red army on its borders,army hell-bent on expansion and vying for the Indian Ocean.And remember,Jihadis were funded and armed through Pakistan,who wanted to hold onto them even after Soviets retreated.Recommend

  • Ram

    sorry dude you are confused and trying to confuse others, there are few people still left in Pakistan who have some common sense and a thinking brain you are confusing them with liberals or you just them to be killed by your true “conservative” pakistanisRecommend

  • Asad

    “That’s not true.”
    Says who? Some bigoted Indian with nothing to back himself up? It seems there is much you need to learn about history from neutral sources.Recommend

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    Pakistan was created so that muslims could get away from hindu rituals such as neog, sati, cow worship and yoni/lingum worship. It was the best for both Hindus and muslims, something which your ancestors realized but you do not.
    a muslim sacrifices a cow but hindus worship it, that would have made life difficult for both.
    similarly, a hindu does yoni/lingum worship and their sacred texts say that they should do neog, but for a muslim any intimacy outside marriage or with more than one person at a time is morally wrong, this too would have made life difficult.
    So the creation of Pakistan was great for both.Recommend

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    And I have stated the fact that your comment drips of jealousy. Naw, please do not be jealous of me because I went to a good university, plz plz don’t be jealous. Hahahahahahhaha.
    you know this I like, when you get yours handed to you but you still come back for more humiliation.Recommend

  • Asad

    These “various powers” mentioned include Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as well as a number of Western countries.Recommend

  • نائلہ

    “I have stated the fact that you keep lying”- let me know where you have stated the references for these said “facts”, thanks.Recommend

  • نائلہ

    @wb man, come argue with me. Atleast you have a tad bit better chance at winning than with @disqus_z8pJsLOVXi:disqusRecommend

  • zee

    maximus and naila are the same personRecommend

  • نائلہ

    Pretty sure he is a guy, so no. Recommend

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    Why such a personal attack? I don’t like it when people get personal for no reason.
    But lets forget that for What I really want to do is Thank/congratulate you.
    You sir! deserve the Nobel prize,,,,,On humanitarian grounds.For by writing this article you have made even the most poorly researched article look like doctorate level theses.
    I see that in the past you have given us brilliant pieces of writing which advocated the “greatness” of Bilawal Bhutto and his cultural “festival” (the later is called destruction of mohenjodaro in learned circles). But with this article you have taken my breath, and you sanity away. Kudos to you.Recommend

  • Ernest Dempsey

    While I don’t know a lot about history, my meagre knowledge agrees with what you are saying at large – yes free market and capitalism – especially crony capitalism as we see it now – leads to misery of some at the expense of others, and that is why the proponents of change themselves don’t personify change – they only advocate change while benefiting from the system. However, state-ownership by an oppressive state (and thinking of stalanism) is even more dangerous and we remember that Stalanist era as essentially a secular one in Russian history. I ultimately believe in a secular state but where people have a great degree of freedom in making life choices, something along the lines of communal life without or with minimal state intervention.Recommend

  • Sammy

    The author is evidently passionate about the issue, which is good. But his passion is writing a cheque-this article being the said cheque-that facts cannot cash. The heady mixture of youthful angst, misplaced analogies, and nonexistent examples aside, this is a splendid article.Recommend

  • Sammy

    Liberal simply means that what you do is your business and what i do is mine, as long as it doesn’t directly and physically affect my well being. What you wear or what you drink isn’t my concern….but your taking/giving bribes to get a government contract. Hence the civilized understanding of ‘liberalism’ is anti-thetical to the Islamist collectivist thinking that you are trying to bring up here.Recommend

  • Gratgy

    Pakistan was created for muslim vanity and nothing much to do with anything else. Muslims were afraid the Hindu majority would treat them in the same way as they would treat hindus and others if Muslims were in majority.
    As far as rituals go, calling niyog and sati “hindu” traditions is the same as calling paedophilia, incest and beheading, muslim traditionsRecommend

  • Gratgy

    Oh you poor thing!!!Recommend

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    There are sacred texts of hindus which say that Sati should be performed, Neog should be done, and cow should be worshiped. Show me where in Quran it is said a person should be incestous or a pedophile.
    I ask you to show me just one reference from the Holy Quran. If you do not show it then you are a liar. I say again, Show me the reference from QURAN or be forever marked as a liar.Recommend

  • نائلہ

    Those are my words! So wait, you lie AND you steal? A rich portfolio indeed.Recommend

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    I feel sorry for you. for you too have been humiliated in your attempts to crawl away from the sacred hindu rituals of neog, yoni/lingum poocha, cow worship and sati. You too tried to just brush aside these oft practiced hindu rituals which are mentioned in Smrtis and Satyarath Prakash, but I caught you at once. But even though you and WB have done similar things I will not call you the same guy.Recommend

  • siesmann

    so what is the reasons that Hindus are getting away from bad rituals and rites,whereas Muslims insist on living in 7th century AD.And I wanted to say something about your sect(indeed a faith),but it will add hurt to injury.Recommend

  • siesmann

    The difference is how the sacred text are being applied in the modern world.Just having a “better sacred text” doesn’t help anything,and rather creates bigots out of faithful.Recommend

  • siesmann

    And yet Pakistanis say that American conservatives are the source of all ills in the world..So liberalism is good for others,but bad for Pakistanis.Recommend

  • siesmann

    Pakistanis have their own definition of terms completely contrary to the actual meaning.The translation mullahs give to secularism is laa-deeniyat;liberalism means islamophobia ;blasphemy -only for Muslim sensitivities,and myriad others.And to top the list is a label “liberal fascism”,a completely ridiculous term.Fascism is always considered a product of conservatism the world over,but in Pakistan it is exactly the opposite.Recommend

  • siesmann

    But anti-mullah is the only thing worst in this world,for mullahs.Recommend

  • Gratgy

    lol! , wb and I have had disagreements in the past which is very easy to deduce from our past comments, so obviously we cannot be the same person. he and I are on the very opposites of the political spectrum in India.

    Satyarth Prakash?? your stupidity increases with every comment. this was written in 1875, so how can it be a sacred text of a religion that is 1500 years old??

    Do you really want me to show the same stupidity by throwing dirt on other religions while you yourself are living in a huge glass house. I can show you tons of links to verses of Quran, hadiths etc on various discussion on various aspects of Islam, but do you want to go there. Please stop throwing muck on others.Recommend

  • Gratgy

    What are your words??? Recommend

  • Gratgy

    Do you really want me to post links on paedophilia and slavery in Quran? Will that make you happy??Recommend

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    YES please. Feel free to try your best. I have read the Quran multiple times with translation. I have read many of its commentaries and NOT A SINGLE verse or word talks about Pedophilia. Again I would like you to post any link about pedophilia which you can find or be forever marked a liar.Recommend

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    Quite true. But When a sacred text categorically says that something must be done there isn’t much a person can do.Recommend

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    Sati has been mentioned in SMRTIS, they were written more than 1500 years ago. Do not back away now, for I took your view of hinduisms age and correlated it with Smrtis.
    Satyarath Prakash is the explanation of hindu Sacred Texts (which btw have been lost as there is no single copy of them , neither is there a single person who remembers them by heart, so without any memory or complete physical copy they are lost. As opposed to Quran which is preserved by memorization).
    I DO so want to go into duscussion about Islam so that I can ofc put to rest your claims about hinduism.Recommend

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    Feel free to say what you want. It will be a pleasure to explain it to you. I think my sect is the least violent of all muslim sects.Recommend

  • siesmann

    that is what I believe about Ahmadis.I was going to say what good has Pakistan or rather Pakistanis have done to your sect.At least in India Ahmadis can call themselves Muslims,as they believe,and their right.And I was not expecting this kind of views on Hinduism.Obviously you have read the same textbooks as other Muslims in Pakistan.Recommend

  • siesmann

    AT least a little rationalism can be applied .Muslims compalin that others are interpreting their scriptures out of context,but at the same time say it is to be applied same way without taking the contextRecommend

  • Gratgy

    Please give any credible links to your gibberishRecommend

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    When a woman’s husband has died, she should either practice ascetic celibacy or ascend (the funeral pyre) after him. – Vishnu Smriti, 25.14. ONE OF MANY References. from Smrtis
    Queen Satyavati asks Vyasa to to perform neog with the widow of the other son Vichitravirya. One of many references from MAHABHARTA.Recommend

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    of course.I agree with you 100%. I always try to read the context. I even read commentaries of sacred texts to make sure that I am not causing grievances.
    I think if you view my comment history I have never ever commented that the hindu scriptures call for hindus to kill all other man. I know that it has been said in context. I have never said that hindus have been called when it was said the meaning was metaphorical and the implied meaning was that they should “realize the fact that man is nothing, and that religion is greater than man”.Recommend

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    I have commented more than 600 times using disqus. If you find a single comment degrading a hindu holy man. I will apologize to you publically. You pick the spot, any spot anywhere. I will come there using my own funds and apologize to you in public.
    According to my belief All religions were created by GOD and were the best way to live in their respective time. therefore I give hindu Rishi’s and the other hindu figures the same degree of respect that I give to muslim holy men. when I discuss hinduism with someone I always call your holy personage Hazrat Ramchandar because I believe that he was a great saint on whom revelation descended from True God and at whose hands miracles were shown.
    So please do not say that my views on hinduism are the same as others. I only point out things which need to be changed.Recommend

  • Qazi

    thesis*Recommend

  • Gratgy

    There you go exhibiting your ignorance once again. Vishnu Smriti??? you call that a sacred text, it is a work of one person, that is as sacred about Hinduism as Satanic verses is about Islam. Moreover any book on hinduism doesn’t make it a sacred text. As far as Mahabharata goes, it is an epic, Do you understand the meaning of epic??

    I don’t need to keep replying to your braindead gibberish
    Recommend

  • Gratgy

    Smritis were laws in 500 BC, Hindus no longer follow laws from 500 BC, unlike you who still want to go back to barbarity

    Recommend

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    Thanks man. I am honored that people read me posts down to the last word. I’ll make sure I type better the next time.Recommend

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    Show me where it is written that Smrti is not a hindu sacred text. I can show you at least 100 references where it is said that Smrtis are religious texts.

    Provide these or be marked as a liar forever.Recommend

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    last time I checked Sati was ongoing in India.Recommend

  • Gratgy

    Talking about liars coming from someone who follows one who claims to have married his wife in the sky 100 years back lol!

    “In contrast with this, there is no record of any sovereign promulgating the variousdharma-shastras (texts of dharma for society) for any specific territory at any specific time, nor any claim that God revealed such “social laws,” or that they should be enforced by a ruler. None of the compilers of the famous texts of social dharma were appointed by kings, served in law enforcement, or had any official capacity in the state machinery. They were more akin to modern academic social theorists than jurists. The famous Yajnavalkya Smriti is introduced in the remote sanctuary of an ascetic. The well-known Manusmriti begins by stating its setting as the humble abode of Manu, who answered questions posed to him in a state of samadhi (higher consciousness). Manu (1.82) tells the sages that every epoch has its own distinct social and behavioral dharma.”

    Smritis were hindu traditional laws in 500 BC as prescribed by certain individuals who did not claim to have spoken to God, Anyway unlike we do not follow medieval laws/customsRecommend

  • Gratgy

    hahahahahahhahaha! ROFLMAO when was the last time you checked?Recommend

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    Well at least you admit that it is a sacred book. Good
    If they are not your laws then why are hindus still doing Sati?
    I have presented various newspaper stories which show that sati is ongoingRecommend

  • So your response to criticism is another ad hominem rant? See why liberals pull their hair out dealing with people like you? It’s because your mind is closed but your mouth isn’t; the great tragedy of our times.Recommend

  • Gratgy

    Where did I admit? lol!! Hindus doing Sati??? hahahaha this takes the cake. Recommend

  • Tellerr

    well written. and absolutely succinct ending. couldnt have said it better.Recommend

  • Tellerr

    sir if i could bestow a medal i would! that was a brilliant reply.Recommend

  • Tellerr

    yes only when is disagreeing with your faith in mirza sahab. then all hell breaks looseRecommend

  • Tellerr

    and perhaps a liberal mind is open as their mouth. hanging wide with nonsense pouring out and nothing to protect its own thoughts. spilling binRecommend

  • Tellerr

    as opposed to lets say indian muslims. the envy of subcontinent’s minority. at times weeds strangle the young blossoms. and weeds are only meant to be weeded out. ungrateful, useless intellectuals are part of our problems. how pointless to mourn the birth of country one lives in, or enumerate errors of history all the while presenbt is passing you by. an individuals who regrets his birth is never going to contribute anything to any society.mental suicide.Recommend

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    Ofc not. People have been disagreeing with him since 1880’s but he and his community has been explaining things to them for the last 125 years. This has resulted in our community gaining new converts by the thousands and it progressed from 40 members to millions.Recommend

  • Gaad

    It would have been better if you had simplified your comments for people like me to understand rather than asking the commenters to go and have a degree in political science theory and then comment. Would you feel interested or connected somehow with the issue, if I were to post a technical article on the IMPACT OF MODERN AIR POWER ON THE INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC INITIATIVES AGAINST NON-STATE ACTORS? and then suggested that you should go and have a degree in strategic studies before coming to read and comment.Recommend