RajaniKanth is megastar( wait...Giga Star...hmm....No not a star, Super Nova...not really...perhaps Galactic Star....yes that sounds right)...Rajanikanth is a Galactic Star.
He embodies an ouevre of work which spans two decades. When he comes on screen to those who are familiar of his work, he represents all his work. .Why?
Kind of respect he commands while alive,coaxed me to think that maybe, it was from here, Aryans learnt the bulk of Hinduism, mainly idolatry. And in my belief, it allowed Hinduism to survive islamic onslaught when Islam routed every other older civilization.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Saddam Hussain: Iraki Leader
Just watched "House of Saddam - HBO series". Looking at Iraki society, it seems so plausible why he could be a legitimate leader. His legitimacy is valid in the sense that there is no mechanism in place to replace him rather than having another dictator.
I have an Iraki-American friend and often get to know the arab version of the world. In his version, he seemed to be the best of the worst leaders they could have had. The rift between Shia and Sunni has been playing in Irak since prophet's nephew was murdered and broke that idolator Iranian heart. After all, Iranians gave us our religion, at least the nature worshipping part, and also the part where we worship the kings, perfect men e.g. Rama and Krishna. Thus, I could understand their point why caliphate should have stayed with the Prophet's blood line. Prophet's family is the perfect family and spilling the holy blood 1000s years ago made Arabs barbarian in Shia's eyes.
Given this background, saddam was secular in pursuit of his power and was paranoid( as needed, ask Andy Grove ), brutal( what is detractors did to him ) and had western political goals ( education, political party, military ) rather than religious absolute goal which blindsides a person to every other concern( I know it personally. Brahmins often thought that world is maya and just this idea made India slightly unconcerned with earthly concerns. They even influenced Kings, both Hindu and Muslim, Dara Sikoh...It kind of makes you zone out and all earthly concern seem pitiful).
In short, he was not a psycho. His weaknesses were like of Bush and other powerful family's in democratic society where loyalty is rewarded. If he were surrounded by more democratic ambience, he would have been a decent forceful leader.
I have an Iraki-American friend and often get to know the arab version of the world. In his version, he seemed to be the best of the worst leaders they could have had. The rift between Shia and Sunni has been playing in Irak since prophet's nephew was murdered and broke that idolator Iranian heart. After all, Iranians gave us our religion, at least the nature worshipping part, and also the part where we worship the kings, perfect men e.g. Rama and Krishna. Thus, I could understand their point why caliphate should have stayed with the Prophet's blood line. Prophet's family is the perfect family and spilling the holy blood 1000s years ago made Arabs barbarian in Shia's eyes.
Given this background, saddam was secular in pursuit of his power and was paranoid( as needed, ask Andy Grove ), brutal( what is detractors did to him ) and had western political goals ( education, political party, military ) rather than religious absolute goal which blindsides a person to every other concern( I know it personally. Brahmins often thought that world is maya and just this idea made India slightly unconcerned with earthly concerns. They even influenced Kings, both Hindu and Muslim, Dara Sikoh...It kind of makes you zone out and all earthly concern seem pitiful).
In short, he was not a psycho. His weaknesses were like of Bush and other powerful family's in democratic society where loyalty is rewarded. If he were surrounded by more democratic ambience, he would have been a decent forceful leader.
Dawn and its opinion page writers
Dawn is a venerated newspaper in Pakistan, started by Father of Pakistan, Jinna himself. I often read the newspaper to get an idea of how pakistani literate class is thinking about pakistan( as if that matters. I should be reading what newspaper Military Establishment is reading to get an idea of power center's thoughts).
In anycase, I often read the opinion page by various writers. Here is what I think of them.
Javed naqvi:
Mr. Naqvi seems to think that social/political goals can be achieved through nihilistic violence. He suggests that Mumbai terror is due to Muslim Alienation because they have not been part of recent Indian Economic growth. He doesn't realize that most of India is not participant in the recent Economic growth.
In Maharashtra itself, we have farmers committing suicide( the so called most developed state ). In Gujarat we had massacre based on religion which was not even contained, but rather infalmed. In Bihar and UP, where there is significant muslim population, Laloo and Mulayam Yadav have worst governance record. Only place I could think which have done well so far is Southern States. In this malaise, everyone's lot in India is precarious unless you are an old royalty or big business house scion. To suggest that these terror attacks, given the pervasive poverty, were results of economic depravation is malicious and it hurts Muslim economic and political cause.
I do agree with his point that Muslims in India do not have to put their patriotism on the lapel. They are as Indian as any one else, and perhaps more so. Most of our leaders are Hindus and see what they have done for us.
CowasJee:
He seems to talk about persians in India/Pakistan most of the times. He, more often than not, dwells in past. And thinks that India in 1933 was a great place when we are fighting for our freedom with our lives, and Bhagat Singh was dying for the nation. It is possible that He finds present day India/Pakistan worse that what he was living in British India. This shows that nations are never homogeneous entity and there are always people who are at top, comfortably ensconced and not aware of the problems masses were facing.
What I find fascinating is his enmity towards President Zardari and support for General Musharraf. He doesn't get it that Zardari is an elected president and always points out his foibles. He fails to see that he is a legitimate leader. In fact, that may be the fundamental difference between India and Pakistan. We get the lousiest leaders in the world, but those bastards have the rights to rule us since they won a fair election. If you think otherwise, please go organize and vote. Pass a legislation to put criteria for leaders. But once elected, dont smear their legitimacy, just because PM Bhutto arrested him long time ago.
Kamran Shafi:
He is a retired Military General, I believe. He never deals with real issues, but talks about what fun time he had in jaipur or whereever he went. And what great sort of people he knew. And how in India Military doesn't get royal treatment....He should see our politicians....thugs....
In anycase, I often read the opinion page by various writers. Here is what I think of them.
Javed naqvi:
Mr. Naqvi seems to think that social/political goals can be achieved through nihilistic violence. He suggests that Mumbai terror is due to Muslim Alienation because they have not been part of recent Indian Economic growth. He doesn't realize that most of India is not participant in the recent Economic growth.
In Maharashtra itself, we have farmers committing suicide( the so called most developed state ). In Gujarat we had massacre based on religion which was not even contained, but rather infalmed. In Bihar and UP, where there is significant muslim population, Laloo and Mulayam Yadav have worst governance record. Only place I could think which have done well so far is Southern States. In this malaise, everyone's lot in India is precarious unless you are an old royalty or big business house scion. To suggest that these terror attacks, given the pervasive poverty, were results of economic depravation is malicious and it hurts Muslim economic and political cause.
I do agree with his point that Muslims in India do not have to put their patriotism on the lapel. They are as Indian as any one else, and perhaps more so. Most of our leaders are Hindus and see what they have done for us.
CowasJee:
He seems to talk about persians in India/Pakistan most of the times. He, more often than not, dwells in past. And thinks that India in 1933 was a great place when we are fighting for our freedom with our lives, and Bhagat Singh was dying for the nation. It is possible that He finds present day India/Pakistan worse that what he was living in British India. This shows that nations are never homogeneous entity and there are always people who are at top, comfortably ensconced and not aware of the problems masses were facing.
What I find fascinating is his enmity towards President Zardari and support for General Musharraf. He doesn't get it that Zardari is an elected president and always points out his foibles. He fails to see that he is a legitimate leader. In fact, that may be the fundamental difference between India and Pakistan. We get the lousiest leaders in the world, but those bastards have the rights to rule us since they won a fair election. If you think otherwise, please go organize and vote. Pass a legislation to put criteria for leaders. But once elected, dont smear their legitimacy, just because PM Bhutto arrested him long time ago.
Kamran Shafi:
He is a retired Military General, I believe. He never deals with real issues, but talks about what fun time he had in jaipur or whereever he went. And what great sort of people he knew. And how in India Military doesn't get royal treatment....He should see our politicians....thugs....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)