Relentless Yapping

We need a YIMBY movement in: CA OR WA CO IL NY NJ MA RI CT Like it's an imperative.

@FellahMengu @AhmedShahAzfar The genocide was reprehensible. Partition was bloody in part because the Hindu majority refused to part with all of Punjab and Bengal. And I absolutely heed your point about Indian Muslims. But Partition freed up 2/3rds of India's Muslims. There is no getting around that.

@RelentlessYapp @AhmedShahAzfar Indian Muslims would not have been so vulnerable and the genocide in East Pakistan would not have happened, let alone the millions who died in Partition!

Delhi as part of Pakistan and Kolkata as part of Bangladesh? If only Hindu Nationalists knew their own history 🤷🏾‍♂️ - Times Magazine 1945

@FellahMengu @AhmedShahAzfar Sorry buddy, there are ~425M people who live to India's East and West who disagree. Partition didn't come out nowhere. As the British Raj was winding down, the leaders of the Congress Party, Gandhi included, bent toward majoritarianism. That was a cancer for the minority.

@AhmedShahAzfar Today's South Asia would have been better without Partition though. Muslim or Hindu fundamentalism would not have been given political backing. A unified secular State would have been way more powerful than the current set of proxies!

@MDUmairKh Do you have the entire piece somewhere?

Before his death, Quaid-i-Azam gave one of his last interviews to the Saturday Evening Post, knowing well that it'd get published for the public to read. "Religion itself actually seemed to bore him. When asked about the role of Islam in the future policy of Pakistan, he impatiently replied: 'I am not interested in the religious aspect; that's not in my line.'"

@krish_oza_dev @JavedSuri @sanjayuvacha @iamrana No, he wanted to avoid what is happening to the Muslims of India today. You should read history. It's there.

@RelentlessYapp @JavedSuri @sanjayuvacha @iamrana No he already got seperate electorate and was already forming religion based political party long before Congress denied anything. Jinnah is the pioneer of communal poltics in pre independence India

"Essentials of Hindutva" was written in 1923 a full decade before Chaudhry Rehmat Ali proposed the name Pakistan in 1933. Jinnah came into the seperatist cause later. He was Gokhale's secretary and Tilak's lawyer. He grew his politics as a representative of the Muslims of undivided India and made it to the Viceroy's council. His advocacy of a separate Pakistan was a post 1935 phenomenon once the Congress governments refused to share power. I do not defend his post 1940 trajectory, but one must dispassionately examine historical events against the timeline which they emerged from. For example when the history of the metamorphosis of the Secular Indian Republic into a Hindu first Rashtra is written, we would have to relate the complicity of Hindu minded Congress politicians, from Gobind Vallabh Pant, whose government allowed the installation of the Rama idol in the Masjid, to the people who advised Rajiv Gandhi to get the locks removed, to the Advani Rath Yatra and the riots following the demolition, the Bombay blasts, the Godhra train , to the dominance of the Modi era. History is not linear, not even an arc, but sometimes it seems to be a spiral.

@JavedSuri @sanjayuvacha @iamrana Jinnah wanted constitutional measures to protect Muslims from majoritarianism. Congress said no. That was it.

@sanjayuvacha @iamrana This curiosity has been with me for long. I wanted to understand the Pakistani version of Independence struggle to get a balanced idea of what exactly happened between 1916 and 1947 that led to partition.

@marvisirmed @Razarumi Pakistani writers were going to say this. Indian Muslims have long been arguing that India is secular, that they were abandoned by the Muslim League etc. Hence, it's more meaningful when they start admitting that there is no overcoming majoritarianism.

@Razarumi Interesting. But has been expressed many times by Pakistani writers. May have some merits considering how the BJP/RSS duo managed to put indian secularism on a consistent downward slope. But I still think this correlation might not be a causation. Esp. in this very direction.

“BJP has proved Jinnah right—that his fears of the inevitability of Hindu consolidation weren’t just imagined but real; that such a consolidation would ultimately lead to the establishment of a “Hindu Raj” or Hindu rule, under which religious minorities would be reduced to subservience.” — Frontline. Link below.

@fjriwlpq @frontline_india This exactly. Congress could have built-in Constitutional provisions to protect the Muslim minority. They refused to do so.

@frontline_india It was not BJP that mocked that argument, there was no BJP at that time. It was Congress and India's nationalist leaders like Nehru, Patel and Gandhi who denied that argument, all the while building a politics of consolidating the Hindu vote

NEW | In 1938, Jinnah claimed that Hindu consolidation would end in Hindu Raj. The BJP spent years mocking that argument while steadily building the political conditions that now make it sound like a roadmap. Ajaz Ashraf writes. Read here: frontline.thehindu.com/columns/jinnah…

@darab_farooqui @TVK2029 You cannot say Jinnah was wrong when over four hundred million people to the East and West are forever grateful for the decision he made including the descendants of those who literally walked on foot to avoid the inevitable predicament. Jinnah was right.

Bhai, what you are describing is exactly what Jinnah's concluded. That constitutional promises cannot hold against permanent majority dominance. That separation is the only answer. Jinnah was wrong then. Not because the threat wasn't real. But because his solution made everything worse. The answer to a bad majority is not to turn a good minority into a bad majority. As it happened in Pakistan. The idea is to fight for the constitutional morality that defeats majority's tyranny. The moment we accept that numbers permanently decide, we have already lost. Not to BJP. But to Jinnah's idea of what India is. And all types of majoritarianism. And that's the fight I believe in.

Look at this title: "How the BJP proved Jinnah right." The rest of the article is just evidence assembled to prove the title correct. That is the first and the biggest problem. The title is the argument. And the argument is Jinnah's. Jinnah's foundational claim was not just that Congress was communal. Or that Hindus would dominate Muslims politically. His claim was deeper and more dangerous. He said Hindus and Muslims are two separate civilisations. Irreconcilable cultures, irreconcilable identities, irreconcilable interests. They cannot share a nationhood. That was the intellectual basis of Pakistan. Everything else followed from that one argument. The Pirpur Report. The two-nation theory. Partition itself. So when Ajaz bhai says the BJP has proved Jinnah right, he is not just criticising Hindu majoritarianism. He is validating the civilisational framework underneath it. He is saying yes, Hindu consolidation and Muslim identity are inherently in conflict. The cow, the mosque, the azaan, the Uniform Civil Code are the real battlegrounds of Indian nationhood. That is not a critique of Jinnah. That is Jinnah. This is a mistake Muslim intellectuals and progressives make repeatedly. In their urgency to condemn Hindu nationalism, they reach for Jinnah as their validator. The man who saw it coming. But Jinnah did not just see it coming. He built half of it. The BJP and Jinnah are not cause and effect. They are mirror images. Jinnah needed Hindu nationalism to mobilise Muslims. Hindutva needed Jinnah and Pakistan to mobilise Hindus. They co-created each other. And the moment Pakistan was born, Jinnah's defensive minority politics became majority tyranny. The mirror was complete. The BJP is not proving Jinnah right. The BJP is the Hindu Jinnah. To be fair, Ashraf bhai does see the irony. He notes that Jinnah's own politics enabled the BJP's consolidation. That in a united India this would not have been possible. He is not unaware of the paradox. But seeing the irony is not the same as escaping the framework. His title is still "proved Jinnah right." His evidence is still the mosque, the cow, the azaan. He acknowledges the contradiction and then keeps writing inside it anyway. That is the deeper problem. The idea of India was built against exactly this. Not to win Jinnah's argument. To make it irrelevant. Netaji understood this. The Azad Hind Fauj was not a compromise. The Qaumi Tarana was not a compromise. It was a deliberate civilisational counter-argument. India's diversity is its identity, not its problem. That road was not fully taken. We have been paying for it since. Ashraf bhai's article never once steps outside Jinnah's framework. It accepts his categories, his battlefield, his civilisational logic. So does the BJP. That is the tragedy. Not who is winning this argument. But that we are still having it on Jinnah's terms. Our preamble was not looking for answers in Hindu civilisation or Muslim civilisation. It was looking for answers in modern morality. Liberty, equality, fraternity, justice. That is the idea of India. Not a verdict on whose civilisation wins. A deliberate choice to move beyond that question altogether. That is the argument we have abandoned. And the only one worth reclaiming.

Retweet if your team is still undefeated 🙌

This empty car wash at 400 Divis is proof of SF’s housing death spiral - over 200 homes stalled for nearly a decade I’m working to change the law so projects can build under the rules they applied with, cutting millions in costs and finally turning sites like this into housing.

@admcrlsn If Mamdani is +10 and is at 49%, is it still a race?

September polls of this race have been remarkably consistent. Mamdani typically in the low 40s, Cuomo in the mid-20s, Sliwa around 15, Adams just below 10. Mamdani’s lead shrinks only a little if Adams drops out. Cuomo is the underdog but in the game if Adams & Sliwa drop out.

Notable: the Family Zoning Plan barely passed 4–3. Three commissioners voted against legalizing homes—even at the risk of a state takeover. They were appointed by past Boards of Supervisors. To build the housing we need, SF must elect a pro-growth Board that can appoint pro-growth commissioners across every city function.

The last time the Chargers held sole possession of 1st place in the AFC West (and remained there until the end of the season) was Week 11 in 2009.. What time to be alive🏝️ | #BoltUp

There were Manhattans all over America and we destroyed them all for cars

@MazMHussain That cursed tower.

There is a bill in Congress right now that would allow the State Department to revoke the passports of American citizens that criticize U.S. foreign policy. How is this even remotely legal?

@daveweigel Why not!

Folks…

"Just kill them". He's not just celebrating someone's death. He's calling for mass murder, something not protected by free speech in any form. Absolutely nobody on "the right" will call for his firing, will they? This country is rapidly becoming unrecognizable.

In Iowa, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) criticizes New York members of Congress who haven’t endorsed Zohran Mamdani’s candidacy for NYC Mayor. “That kind of spineless politics is what people are sick of,” he says. “They need to get behind him, and get behind him now.”

Yes it is an idiotic headline but in fairness it matches the idiotic story.