The article clearly shows that the writer, Mr. SHAIKH AZIZUR RAHMAN
, had vested interests in showing India in a bad light and the motivation is very clear for all to see.Hmmm
…I wonder who else would want to show India in a bad light? Pick one, please:
A) Canada
B) Germany
C) Sri Lanka
D) Pakistan.
seenappa
A - for the Pokhran blast
B - for supporting Brits in WW2
C - for supporting LTTE
D - but obvious
but seriously, no reason to get offended by the article; there have been worse written by, if am not wrong - Haroon Siddique of Toronto Star - that didnt make any difference or stop people from dealing with India or Desi's. Articles like this have no impact on a country's reputation.
Quote:
Originally posted by chekram_04
On this forum nobody discuss about bashing Pakistan and it seems you are very very happy by reading this article. Now answer me who have a communal spite? Please come out of such narrow mentality. This mentality doesn't exist for a long and you feel this very soon,
This is totally immature and ridiculous. What does that aticle have to do with Pakistan is beyond me. Why seenappa would bring that up??
I agree with the above reply, we should change our thinking and stop blamming one and other. As regards to articles, this happens not only in India but in so many other Countries. I know an Engineer with name 'Sunil' but one day I found actually his full name is 'Sunil Mohammed'. But I know a lot of Muslims with no problem! So just one of isolated incidents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raza
Posts: 456
Location: Canada-Glorious and Free
Posted on: 29-08-07 11:52:56
Location: Canada-Glorious and Free
Posted on: 29-08-07 11:52:56
Quote:
Originally posted by puttoo
Your saying that the majority of Pakistanis have relatives in India ...... is what you say ... your guess..... it is not a fact.
I was a best guess based on my experience in Pakistan. And I still stand by it. And I know a lot of people here in Canada who hail from India and have relatives in Pakistan and vis-versa.
Quote:
Originally posted by puttoo
Secondly India is not a country with world's largest muslim population.
Sorry meant to say ONE of the largest populations in the world but technically India is second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India
The point I was making is still valid.
Quote:
Originally posted by puttoo
Now as far as your saying that India & Pakistan should come together and that some people's mentalities are to blame for this not happining.
Let me explain something US & Canada have lot in common as India & Pak ... but you dont see them coming together .... though they share a relationship that we can also share .... \"free trade & irrelevant borders\".
That is as far as i can see our relationshiip going with Pakistan .... now our coming togther has a fundamental problem or i should say difference .... India is a secular country & Pakistan is an Islamic Nation....... As i would not like India to change its character .... i should not expect Pakistan to do that same.
What do you have to say about this?
Nonsense. Focusing on differences will never make this happen. Focus on the similarities and anything is possible. East and West Germany had a wall between them. If they can do it - so can we. We have Qubec - a nation within a nation and we are still a \"colony\" of the British Empire. I bring that up to show that anything is possible. Do not be constrainted by the existing solutions / models - India and Pakistan can \"create a solution\" that can work for them alone.
Quote:
Originally posted by seenappa
The article clearly shows that the writer, Mr. SHAIKH AZIZUR RAHMAN , had vested interests in showing India in a bad light and the motivation is very clear for all to see.
Just because he is muslim - he must be Pakistani?? He is a reporter. He reports what he finds. It does not show India in bad light - but India in the TRUTH. Accept it for what it is unless you are in a position to prove otherwise. You have your bias which is no better than the reporters bias. At least he was not jumping to conclusions.
Quote:
Originally posted by seenappa
1) On that day of August 15th, you would expect to see articles with information on the 60 years of independence. But NO...what you see is a single article on India centering on the mistreatment of minorities. I ask you, was this the right forum and right time for that?
If you do not like the editorial content of the Star - switch papers! I thought I read many artcle in the Globe and Mail regarding India progress, regarding the emergence of India as a corporate force etc. You might want to try that paper.
Quote:
Originally posted by seenappa
2) Fundamentally, the article itself is wrong. As a manager, I see tons of resumes every day at my company where people of Muslim faith shorten their names to sound completely “western\\\". Some of my close Muslim friends readily admit that getting jobs has become much easier when they conceal their Islamic identity. So, is this a case of subjugation of minorities as mentioned by the writer? My point is, this happens everywhere from America to Zimbabwe. Why make a special mention of India?
That just goes to show that the article was true. If it happens from America to Zimbabwe - it happens in india.
Quote:
Originally posted by seenappa
3) Why make a big deal about this article?
Toronto star is a widely read newspaper and you would think they would ensure fairness and balance in the information they print. Someone has to point out when that does not happen.
See above.
BV
Quote:
Originally posted by Big Vee
Nonsense. Focusing on differences will never make this happen. Focus on the similarities and anything is possible. East and West Germany had a wall between them. If they can do it - so can we. We have Qubec - a nation within a nation and we are still a \"colony\" of the British Empire. I bring that up to show that anything is possible. Do not be constrainted by the existing solutions / models - India and Pakistan can \"create a solution\" that can work for them alone.
Well you fail to understand the obvious ...... India & Pakistan were formed as a result of differences between points of view of two communities. It was not an outside force like the US & USSR in case of germany. As i have said before i would like to see India & Pakistan form a special kind of relationship like US & Canada where by they maintain their indivdual identites. However it would be a eutopian dream bordering on lunacy to think there would be a situation whereby they could come together as one.
[quote
2) Fundamentally, the article itself is wrong. As a manager, I see tons of resumes every day at my company where people of Muslim faith shorten their names to sound completely “western\\\". Some of my close Muslim friends readily admit that getting jobs has become much easier when they conceal their Islamic identity. So, is this a case of subjugation of minorities as mentioned by the writer? My point is, this happens everywhere from America to Zimbabwe. Why make a special mention of India?
That just goes to show that the article was true. If it happens from America to Zimbabwe - it happens in india.
See above.
BV
The article was trying to say that in Indian muslims are forced to change their names to hindu sounding names inorder to get a job or survive. This is the same way as it used to said that Dilip Kumar had to change his name from Yusuf Khan to be popular in Indian Cinema.
Quote:
Originally posted by Big Vee
Nonsense. Focusing on differences will never make this happen. Focus on the similarities and anything is possible. East and West Germany had a wall between them. If they can do it - so can we. We have Qubec - a nation within a nation and we are still a \"colony\" of the British Empire. I bring that up to show that anything is possible. Do not be constrainted by the existing solutions / models - India and Pakistan can \"create a solution\" that can work for them alone.
Are you serious or is this a joke? Back to pre-1947?
Focusing on similarities may eliminate the concept of countries one day and the whole planet will "live as one". I'm not holding my breath!
Before you get on your high horse like you usually do, I have nothing against Pakistan. And yeah, it does need mention on this thread with respect to this article.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Are you there?
Quote:This is not true.
Originally posted by puttoo
This is the same was it used to said that Dilip Kumar had to change his name from Yusuf Khan to be popular in Indian Cinema.
According to Dilip Kumar's biographies he changed his name because he didn't want his father to find out that he was acting in movies (which in those days wasn't very reputable).
Also, the name was picked by Devika Rani as a "screen name" and nothing more.
A lot of actors in those days had screen names, including Meena Kumari and Madhubala - most likely for the same reason as Dilip Kumar.
Being a muslim has not held anyone back, at least in the Indian movie industry.
Think of Muhammad Rafi, Surayia, Talat Mahmood, etc. - when did being a muslim reduce their popularity?
What about Shahrukh Khan, Aamir Khan, etc. in today's world?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Mah deah, there is much more money to be made in the destruction of civilization than in building it up."
-- Rhett Butler in "Gone with the Wind"
