Hussain crows about Hussain in vain
Posted on November 13th, 2011

H. L. D. Mahindapala

 One of the common strands that runs through the pompous pontifications of Izeth Hussain is the assumption that his statements consist of profundities of an intellectual maestro who could beat all his rivals, except, of course, the four unnamed “great diplomats of the world” who are supposed to be his only equals. This trait leads him to take himself so seriously that he has to proclaim to the world that he is “a sophisticated Westernized intellectual, recognized as one of the literati, a former diplomat who was given high positions by the SLFP”¦”

 Writing advertisements for himself to make-believe that he is “a sophisticated Westernized intellectual, recognized as one of the literati”¦” seem to be his permanent occupation these days, now that he has been put to pasture with nothing else to do except to blame the Sinhalese for not giving high posts to Muslims. But in the same breath he says that the SLFP has given him high positions. He also adds that “Muslim political faithfuls were being rewarded with pukkah posts.” So if he is “given high posts” and the Muslims are “rewarded with pukkah posts” why is he accusing the Sinhalese of discrimination as if Sri Lanka is pursuing a policy of “bhoomi putras” as in Malaysia? He is so confused that he seems to be incapable of holding two thoughts at the same time in his pea brain. Does he know where stands on any issue?

 He seems to be the typical Village Schoolmaster who “e’en though vanquis’ed he could argue still.” Most of the time, he is totally unaware that his second statement contradicts his first statement. He is all over the place unable to back up his statements except with mendacious distortions. For instance, he claims that he is among the “five great diplomats of the world”. When he is pushed to prove it he cites G. K. Reddy, an Indian journalist, as the authority. Then when it is pointed out that there is no such thing as “five great diplomats in the world” he puts the blame on Reddy saying that he did not say it but it was said by Reddy.

 In his reply he waffles disowning any responsibility for saying he is the greatest and, in the same breath, not realizing that he is contradicting himself, he stands up for Reddy saying:: “The obvious explanation (for Reddy saying it) is this: Reddy would have come to his conclusion based on the content and quality shown at that press conference, not on the mere fact that I chaired it.” Here is happy to bask in the glory of Reddy’s bizarre statement, believing every word of his interpretation of what Reddy meant “”…” i.e., “the content and quality shown at the press conference” by Hussain.

 This leads to another question: since he braggingly refers to “the content and the quality” he had shown at the press conference can he tells us, laymen, how his press conference in 1976 differed in “content and quality” from the routine press conferences given by the backroom boys in foreign offices the world over?

 Considering the “content and the quality” of his arguments I would say that he is fit only to hold a press conference in the court of Lilliput. And that too only about the content and the quality of urine released by Gulliver to douse the fire in the court of Lilliput.

 Mark you, he cited Reddy in what he calls “clarification” and not before. He adds that “it was Reddy who said so, not I.” But he is not distancing himself from Reddy either though he points the finger at Reddy for elevating him to greatness which he has not earned in any capacity. Nowhere does he say that Reddy is totally mistaken in his assessment of his performance as chairperson of the pres conference. So what’s the difference? Reddy said it. He accepts it as true and gloats over it. And why should he blame Reddy for saying it? This is typical of Hussain. He derives the maximum benefit from whatever source that favours him and if things turn hot making it unable to handle it he turns around and blames the very source that gave him the benefit of the favours.

 For Hussain to say now that it is “Reddy who said so, not I” reveals his mean streak. In any case, if he didn’t believe what Reddy said why the heck did he cite Reddy as his authority to project himself as the Muhamad Ali of diplomats? Would he have ever cited Reddy if the latter had said that he was among five great dip-low-mutts? No. He wouldn’t have believed, or cited Reddy, if he was condemned. But he was ever ready to quote Reddy proudly because he believed what he said. And also there was no other proof of his “greatness”.

 More than what Reddy said what matters most is that he quoted Reddy approvingly initially. Isn’t that proof of his believing in what Reddy said? Isn’t he quoting Reddy to add some stature to his pathetic status as a failed diplomat? Besides, if he is such a great diplomat how come he could not get along with his Muslim Minister, A. C. S. Hameed? Isn’t the hallmark of a great diplomat revealed in the consummate ability to get along with the good, the bad and ugly? How can a diplomat who could not get along with his own minister be rated as “one of the five great diplomats of the world’?

 Incidentally, he is yet to name the other four super-human diplomats who are supposed to have taken the world by storm and changed the course of human history. (Isn’t that what great diplomats are supposed to achieve?) However, it can be taken for granted, without fear of being contradicted, that Hussain will not be able to name just one of them “”…” let alone all four “”…” for the obvious reason that they exist only in his fetid imagination.

 Hussain hopes to dupe the reader of his imagined greatness by resorting to sly tactics. Each time he has to substantiate his bogus claim of greatness he praises Reddy to the skies hoping that the advertisements written by Hussain to boost Reddy would automatically boost Hussain. He is compelled to boost Reddy because there is no other way to boost himself. Eventually he hangs his greatness on Reddy’s greatness which, at best, is summarized by Hussain in these words: “It is relevant to add that the Delhi Government used to send him at state expense every year to cover part of the UN General Assembly Session.”

 So what? Thousands of journalists from all over the world have covered the UN General Assembly routinely. Is that a qualification for me, or the readers, to accept Reddy as the final authority on declaring Hussain as “one of the five great diplomats of the world”? This level of argumentation is annoying because it is inane. This is also the level I am forced to deal with, sadly.

 The fact that Reddy covered the UN General Assembly sessions doesn’t make him the final word on journalism or on the caliber of diplomats. Besides, there are more experienced and better journalists than Reddy who had covered not only the General Assembly but also the UN as an institution for global peace and stability.

 For instance, our mutual friend T. M. Deen, located in the heart of the UN, is a worthy veteran of the UN press corps. Deen has also covered more international conferences and press conferences than Reddy and I put together. Also, there isn’t a better place for mixing with the best of global diplomats than at the UN. That is the theatre in which diplomatic gladiators wrestle with each other on vital global issues. Deen has been in the thick of these battles. He has won UN awards for covering the UN. If Hussain is genuinely willing to clinch his argument with credible proof for all to accept his greatness he can ask Deen to nominate him as one of the five great diplomats of the world based on the criterion of presiding over just one press conference in 1976. I am prepared to accept Deen’s verdict as the final authority on the subject. But will Hussain accept the challenge? Or will he come back waffling as usual like a goat without a head?

 Hussain’s latest diversion is to claim that he belongs to that esoteric elite called diplomats which laymen like me can never know. I concede that I have never moved among his class of dip-low-mutts. But for the sake of argument, let me concede that being a “layman”, as he says, I have “no basis whatever for making any judgment on whether Reddy might have been right or wrong.” Fine! So will he approach irreproachable Deen and ask whether he would concur with Reddy who had said that he is among the five great diplomats of the world just by presiding over one press conference?

 It also appears that Hussain is aspiring to be a Shahid, a martyr for a Sri Lankan jihad, by raising issues of discrimination against the Muslims. This issue needs special attention as it seems to haunt him ceaselessly. But for the moment I wish to focus on his role as a diplomat which did not go far in any direction. As a failed diplomat who could not get along with his own minister “”…” let alone the others whom I cannot mention “”…” he is wallowing in self-promoting glory which, no doubt, satisfies his over-inflated ego. In all probability he must be fancying himself as the Sultan of Mariyakadday, still hanging around to have a sand bath in the Bambalawatte beach in honour of the outstanding conquests he made at the press conference he chaired in 1976. Unfortunately for him there are no takers “”…” not even among the Muslims — to applaud him. So he writes pathetic advertisements for himself in the media to convince himself that he is great.

 What is tiring in this public discourse is Hussain’s waffling. To bring this discourse to some meaningful core let me ask him some relevant questions:

 1. What are the “contents and qualities” in his press conference of 1976 which makes him one of the five great diplomats of the world?

2. Who are the other four diplomats who ranks with him in the elite five?

3. If he is the great diplomat he claims to be how come he could not get along with his minister when his colleagues managed to succeed in the Foreign Ministry?

4. At a time when the Muslims are persecuted on a global scale by the West, by the Christians, by the Jews, by the Muslim tyrants of the Middle East; at a time when the Muslims are tortured in Guantanmo Bay, not to mention rendition in the Middle East by their own Muslim rulers; at a time when Muslim women are not allowed to drive cars; at a time when the West is passing laws to prevent building mosques, wearing hijab, nijab, or even holding prayers in Christian suburbia; at a time when Muslims are forced to conform to Western values or go back home; at a time when the Muslims in Sri Lanka are given the head scarves free; at a time when Muslims receive free education, health services and other social amenities; at a time when Muslims at prayers were massacred in Kathakudy by the Tamil terrorists; at a time when ethnic cleansing in Jaffna forced nearly 75,000 to run away leaving everything behind; at a time when the Muslims could find refuge only among the Sinhalese as they had done in historical times, at a time when Muslims had equal opportunities without being subject to “bhoomi putra” policies of the majority, on what comparative scale did Hussain come to the conclusion that the Muslims are discriminated by the Sinhalese?

 Hussain also denied having ever met me. I will accept his denial if he is prepared to swear on the Koran an oath based on the words drafted by me. I am ready to swear an oath on any sacred object nominated by him to say that I have met him a couple of times, just not once.

 How about it Izeth? Now don’t waffle. The only way you can prove that you are not a liar to take the oath in my presence. I will make a special trip to be present. If you are truthful there is no excuse for waffling or avoiding. It’s up to you now to prove that you are not a liar. Over to you Izeth. Hope to see you soon at the swearing.

18 Responses to “Hussain crows about Hussain in vain”

  1. Lorenzo Says:

    Throughout websites we can CLEARLY see the ugly rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

    e.g. Lankaweb

    This MUST be militarily defeated as early as possible. Otherwise it will end up as another major confrontation which is unnecessary. Worse part is, if the presence of these Islamic fundamentalists gets to to the ears of USA, India and China, they will have their own plans to come to SL and get rid of this dirt.

    So SL should act fast before others do. When (not if) India, USA, Israel and China land here with their secret services to eliminate Islamic fundamentalism, it will be far too late. It is more HUMANE for us to do it surgically than wait till USA, etc. comes and does it for us.

  2. Lorenzo Says:

    Ah-mad

    Have you forgotten the dirt that was flushed down a toilet in Afghanistan?

    Talking of “intellectual” arguments! My foot!

    These fundamentalists and their dirty books should be flushed down in like manner.

  3. jimmy Says:

    BE DECENT PLEASE

    No unnecessary arguments please

    I am unable to read the paper if people behave like this

    GOVERNMENT SHOULD PASS LAW THAT PEOPLE CAN SUE ANY ONE IF THEY SPEAK OR WRITE AGAINST ANOTHER RACE OR RELIGION OR CULTCURE OR against THE MOTHERLAND

  4. AnuD Says:

    Muslims do not allow a Buddha Statue, A bible in their lands. They use all sneaky tactics to convert. But, when it comes to other religions, they scream discrimination.

    In the west Muslims use the western system – laws and courts – impose their muslim system. Sharia law, muslim women wearing like “billa” are common. They are working hard at making muslims very strongly attached to the faith and also to preventing muslims exposing to other systems.

    But, when it comes to other religions, those are banned in their culture.

    Unfortunately, 300 million Buddhists have to face 2 billion Muslims and 2 billion Christians.

  5. AnuD Says:

    Mr. Mahindapala:

    You should have given to the link this Hussain guy wrote too. That would have been helpful.

  6. Lorenzo Says:

    Ah-mad and the crowd blasted Buddha statues and got the return big time even before a year passed!

    Lovely! They are still paying. Fun (for outsiders) never seizes in their world. :)
    And not to forget tribal killings between the sects!
    Good work Ah-mad. Keep digging your own grave. We wind you up and there you go as expected. Nice talking to you.

  7. NeelaMahaYoda Says:

    Thank you moderator for moderating comments from commentators by the names, “ranjith” and “Ahmed”.They have hijacked the good discussion with their extreme views which is neither good for the nation nor for the peaceful Muslim community.

    Please note that their comments are deleted also in other websites including Asiantribune, LNP.

  8. cassandra Says:

    Like AnuD, I would have appreciated the link to the Hussain article that HLDM is talking about. Without that it is impossible to make real sense of what HLDM is saying.

  9. Raj Says:

    Google Izeth Hussain to find the articles

  10. AnuD Says:

    I read Mr. Hussains article in Lakbima about the minority perception In Sri Lanka.

    I am against Christians and Muslims calling them as sri lankan minorities when they are the majorities in the world and when they use sneaky methods to convert from other religions. Muslims know, how they treat christians and buddhists where ever they are the majority.

  11. Muhammad FS Says:

    Thank you for not having hate mongering comments.

    May God bless you.

  12. AnuD Says:

    AhMAd:

    Did you see, you blasted the two statues in Afghanistan and how much you paid for that.

    That is how every where Muslims kill muslims. You have different groups. On top of that, wahabi ?, for them every other muslim is an infidel.

    Why don’t you burn your book which calls for killing others.

  13. AnuD Says:

    Muhammad:

    There is no Almighty God. In your case, he went to the desert thinking how to unite all these trading tribes. When he came back he had this GOd concept in his mind and he did not want any one to draw his face because that would make other trading tribes anger go against his GOD idea.

    Some how he brought this god idea to unite all the trading tribes that were fighting against each other to dominate business.

    That is why your god has no face, you people think business is part of your religion.

    After all, he killed some tribes because they did not listen to his god idea. So, the first infidels were your own and you continue to do that even todate. remember how you guys killed Qhadaffi ?

    Why you treat women the way treat you is another episode. They are good on the bed. mother is a woman. But, as a wife they are thrash.

  14. jimmy Says:

    Anud
    come on why are you mean to Ahmad and Islam?
    Tell me why
    Srilankan, Indian ,Malaysian , Maldives muslims are totally totally different from Middle eastern muslims their customs and laws
    Didnt you go to school with any Srilankan Muslims , Have you studied under muslim teachers
    Didnt you have any Muslim friends when you grow up?
    Then how could you say things which are too mean

    Stop bashing Muslims and Islam
    I am sick and tired of People who enjoy bullying other
    It is not funny

  15. jimmy Says:

    sorry for typo
    Anud
    what I meant was Why are you mean to Ahmed

    shame on you Pal

  16. AnuD Says:

    Jimmy:

    Is responding to the following bullying ?, Tell me.

    “Ah-mad

    Have you forgotten the dirt that was flushed down a toilet in Afghanistan?

    Talking of “intellectual” arguments! My foot!

    These fundamentalists and their dirty books should be flushed down in like manner. “

  17. Muhammad FS Says:

    Dear AnuD,

    I politely diagree with your respectable views about my religion.

    Man and man’s creations are not perfect. That is why we need God. Killing in the name of god is a mistake by those who literally interpret the holy books. You and I both know that this group of extremists are a very small percentage of the entire Islamic population.

    As you can see I’m a calm and collected person amidst all this. I retain objectivity and sanity in this crazy world. I developed it through the discipline Islam has taught me. I represent Sri Lankan Muslims better than Ahmed.

    I give you what is valuable to me : May God bless you.

    You may give what you consider valuable. Lets agree to disagree on the rest.

  18. Christie Says:

    Most of the Muslims in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) have a Sinhala DNA. They are decendants of Arabtraders and Sinhala women.

    The Tamil terrorists are hell bent on creating religious intolernce between non-Hindus. It is time for to see what Hindus are up to In Ceylon.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

 


Copyright © 2019 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress