The Untruth of an Indian Majority

Re: # 61

Urstruly,

Since when are secularists synonymous with atheists?

Why can`t you be a religious individual who practices his faith and yet, at the same time, have a tolerant and secular outlook towards people of other faiths?

Its hard to know how to respond to drivel like this. At one level it just seems like plain hate speech: hindus dont belong to a semitic civilization, so they have no right to a group identity. What kind if sick logic is this?

Not surprisingly it also includes phrases like: ``illiterate Hindutva activist in fascist-controlled gujarat``. I guess this twit thinks his job is to issue certificates to different goverments. Actually gujarati literacy is quite high and much better than the socialist heaven of bengal.

Most hindutva-inclined people I have met are actually quite educated. The real question is WHY educated hindus have become more inclined to focus on their identity as hindus. But to ask such a question requires some real thought, far beyond this guy.

Where does the ``shared perception of hinduism`` come from, Mr. Birdbrain Mani? Do you have ANY idea of indian history starting with british rule?? Have you heard of Ram Mohun Roy, Vivekananda, Gandhi, various hindu reform movements?

Probably not. Why should you be aware of any real information? After all we know that every hindu worships the ``Manusmriti`` text as their special scripture, right? End of story, no need for further thought.

Plus you can always mumble some nonsense about ``brahmanical revival`` etc. irrespective of the fact that Narendra Modi, Sushma Swaraj come from the simplest strata of society (class and caste!). Compared to them, the Karat`s, the Bhattatcharjees and the Basus are rich aristocrats.

Re: # 61
> Hindus would have wiped out every other people from the face of India....
Wow. We did not do anything like that for 4000 years ..... and suddenly...

Imagine turly saying that !
:)
In 5 decades - how many minorities have survived in Pukiland.... and are there numbers
growing ?

We have an old civilisation. There are countless religions and sects and god knows what
that have come into this land. We have learnt something from them; and they have learnt
something from us. And so this land has been the original melting pot.
Except Islam. Our forefathers must have immediately realized that this cult does not
come from God ....

Coming back to turly`s logic - there are no athiests - secularists (notice how he refers to
them together) in Islamic societies because minorities are not wiped out in them :)).

Turly, Detroit mey jitna anand karna hai kar le.
In a few years, mo will be welcoming u to the kingdom of satan anyways... so then.

Re: # 61 urstruy
[...Hindus would have wiped out every other people from the face of India..]

What`s wrong with that?.... you pakis have wiped out every other people from pakiland already..... islam everywhere seeks to do just that.. so why can`t hinuds do it?....

As per census - the %age of muslims in India has actually gone up in last 60 years..... so I guess hinuds are not doing as much ``wiping out`` as needed ...:)

Legend has it that once Prophet Solomon (pbuh) asked God ``God! Why did you create a fly?``. God replied ``Its funny; a fly was asking the same question about you, just a moment ago``. Similalrly, sometime I fell like thanking God for creating atheists i.e. secularists in India otherwise, Hindus would have wiped out every other people from the face of India in a couple of well planned genocides.

While 80% of India is, technically, Hindu - Hinduism is such that the nuances of belief, ritual and custom are very different in the different corners of the country. Officially, it’s the same religion, but the reality is that there’s no such thing as a common Hindu dogma that can serve to unite two very distinct ethnic groups through religion. Unlike the Semitic faiths, the sense of collective identity is naturally weak and attempts by the Hindutva movement to, essentially, unite Hindus by semitizing the faith in order to foster such identity is a spineless attempt at gaining political power – the ethnic identities are too weighty to be displaced by a shared perception of Hinduism.


True.. But one thing that unites all Hindus is the hatred of Pakistan and of late (if you see bombings of few other temples) hatred of Islam..

Just look at our armed forces for an example of secular practices.

Not true.. There is a clear bias against Muslims and that should be understandable.. Now show me one Muslim from the elite NSG commandos who provide `Z` category security to all the important ``political`` leaders including the ``secularists``.. :-)

When Muslims ruled they had this clever concept from Quran where non-Muslims have to pay jizya. Muslims put a spin that since non-muslims are not forced to serve in the military like the Muslims they have to pay a tax.. It is a win-win, you avoid a potentially ``fifth column`` group of people to be entrusted with weapons and armed training to be turned against you, and you also collect tax. That`s the same reason why top positions were with the Brits when they ruled India. Once you have reservations in the army based on religion you can expect a second partition in the next 30-40 years.

Arstoo...

You`ll have to take my word for it. I am - and others are too.


sanatani...

BJKumar is a purana papi... but if you look at post 51... I think it kind of hints at the real symptoms of caste Hindu chauvinism that often hides as something else- need I say what.

I believe the reason why Caste Hindu Chauvinism remains hostile to say people like you is because I would imagine that there is a certain amount of caste-lessness in political Hinduism... am I correct? As for ``artificial`` constructs... Pakistan is as artificial a construct as any nation state including India... Other than British rule (between 1848-1947), Aurangzeb`s last years and Asoka`s reign... India was never one political entity. Hence even the republic of India is an artificial construct by that logic.

Re: # 6

What is artificial about Pakistan? Not the construct not at all. Mr Manto may not like this in a religion as doctriniare as Islam you try to be heterodox, which is rubbish and you get Pakistan. (I Mean Bukhari could teach Suslov what is it to be a thereotician).

It is you and your ilk that is an artificial construct that imagines a composite culture and leftism when I did not exist.

Sanatani

``When the soul is in silent stillness it arises and leaves the body,
and reaching the Supreme Spirit finds there its body of light.
It is the land of infinite liberty where,
beyond its mortal body, the Spirit of man is free.``

--Upanishads

I think before anything else we are an individualistic country. We are a country of individuals. The other such country is USA, to my mind.

We cherish our individualism. How many of us would like to be called Pundits or thakurs or Lalas or for that matters Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs etc. We would like ourselves to be called by our names.

Thats the true spirit of freedom. Unfortunately, we have to go a long long way before we attain the total freedom. Today, first we look each others as Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians etc. Later we look each others as Thakurs, Brahmins, Baniyas, Shias, Sunnis, Ahmedees, Bohras, Jat Sikhs, Ramghariyas etc. etc. If not this, then punjabi, bhaiiya, marwaris, bengalis, Tamls, Telegus etc.

THis is our immaturity, Our lack of confidence in ourselves as individuals. We got to move along and become a group of individuals under one flag of the Nation.

The real freedom i.e. freedoms from ourselves, freedom from our wrong notions, freedom from from our false values, will come on that day. The real India will be born on that day.

Amen.

What a clown?

Rakesh Mani prove how Gujarat is a fascist state? Are jokers like you have a field day abusing Hindus because the Commi/Congress/Socialist state has ensured:

1) The courts cannot pronounce you guilty for defamation due to absurdly long due process of law.

2) Mulahs can kill innocent Hindus who tell the truth about Islam (Islam truly as Fascism) due to a weakened and anarchic state of law enforcement.

3) When did BJP try to pass a law or attempt to pass a law to declare India a Hindu Rashtra. Give details madar ch***(od., like the minister introducing the bill, what ministry, under what clause etc.

And in case you cant (which you can never) have the moral courage to call urself a thief, cheat, liar and humbug.

Sanatani

Oops forgot how can people of your ilk have ``moral courage``

P.P.S The Majority of Bharatvasis are Hindus. Shri Bharat Varsha is a Hindu Rashtra today technically tommorow legally.

Ref#53
[ We are fighting to change that. ]

Dear Manto

Can you please substantiate this?

Thanks

#47 Zeena

Zeena, thanks for the clarification. You have the right vision - without the foul mouth! I think your chances of realizing your dreams are far higher!

As far as the number of colors is concerned, the world knows there is a LOT of difference between what is preached, what is interpreted, what gets practiced, and what gets portrayed by design!

Let me know when you develop enough courage to unequivocally denounce the Islamic hijackers of the IC-814 flight - and the Pakistani ISI`s role in it!

So far NOBODY has done so.

Perhaps you can prove to be the first MAN among this crowd of Pakistani gutless male-gender-symptom-carriers!

Wiseguyin,

I agree with you that Zeena`s statement was over-enthusiastic... Pakistani minorities have been dejure second class citizens since 1973 ... and defacto third class since 1981 ...

We are fighting to change that.

Re: # 47
>>>> All minorities enjoy equal rights as majorities. (in pukistan)

moh-tarma,
do u know the relation between opening the trap - and loosing credibility ?

Please look at this.

Written by a patriotic Indian... the following article makes the case that it is not the issue of ``majority`` but a small casteist minority which continues to consolidate power (much like Pakistan`s military bureaucracy) that has been the problem ...

``They fought for India`s freedom too``

By Yogi Sikand

Indian textbooks routinely describe the country’s freedom struggle from British colonial yoke as an essentially ‘upper’ caste movement. The ‘nationalist’ heroes they portray and extol are almost all ‘upper’ caste Hindus. Several of these were unabashed Hindu supremacists and defender of ‘upper’ caste/class privilege and entered into various forms of collaboration with the British. If these history texts are to believed, other communities, particularly Muslims, Adivasis and Dalits, had little or no role to play in the anti-colonial movement. An unstated assumption here is that Hindus, by definition, are ‘patriots’ and that the loyalty of non-Hindus to the country is suspect or, at best, lukewarm. It as if the rest of India must always live under ‘upper’ caste Hindu tutelage and rely on ‘upper’ caste saviours to represent them as guardians of the ‘nation’.

This book seeks to forcefully challenge this version of the nationalist myth. It provides fascinating glimpses into the lives of non-Hindu Indian freedom fighters, many of whom laid their lives for liberating the country from British rule. As the largest non-Hindu community in India, the Muslims understandably receive the greatest attention here. This is important for yet another reason: ‘Upper’ caste Hindu ideologues spare no effort to brand Muslims as ‘anti-national’ and their loyalty to India is always sought to be questioned. Hence the need to highlight the contributions made by numerous valiant Muslims in opposing British rule.

Asghar Ali Engineer’s chapter neatly summarises the role of leading ‘ulama in the freedom movement, providing a valuable counter to contemporary depictions of the ulama of the madrasas as ‘anti-national’ and ‘subversive’. He refers to the role of the late eighteenth century Shah Abdul Aziz of Delhi, who issued a fatwa declaring India under the British an ‘abode of war’. He discusess the legacy of Shah Abdul Aziz’s disciples, some of who led a jihad against the British and the Sikh rulers of Punjab. Some of those associated with this tradition carried on the banner of revolt in 1857 and even thereafter, being brutally repressed by the British. Thereafter, sections of the ulama continued their struggle against the British through the Deoband madrasas. Shaikh ul-Hind Mahmud ul-Hasan, rector of the madrasa, launched an organization devoted to this purpose, and one of his disciples, Ubaidullah Sindhi, a Sikh convert to Islam, tied up with leftist and nationalist revolutionaries, of both Hindu and Muslim background, to set up India’s first government-in-exile, in Kabul. Deobandi ulama were also involved in the Khilafat movement against the British along with Gandhi, taking part in the Non-Cooperation movement and opposing the ‘two-nation’ theory of the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League and denouncing the demand for the Partition of India. At the same time, numerous other Muslim groups, such as the Shia Conference and the Momin Conference, also joint the anti-colonial movement and stiffly opposed the Pakistan demand.

The Khilafat movement is discussed in considerable detail by Mushirul Hasan and M.Rafiq Khan in their respective chapters. They argue that the demand for the protection of the Ottoman Caliphate must not be seen as simply an expression of pan-Islamic sentiments divorced from local Indian politics. Rather, the movement to protect the Khilafat launched by key Indian Muslim leaders was at the same time powerfully anti-colonial in thrust, and these leaders insisted, as did numerous Hindu Congress leaders, that the struggle for the Khilafat and for India’s independence and inter-community solidarity were inseparable.

The role of Muhammad Ali Jinnah in India’s freedom movement is discussed in considerable detail by Moin Shakir and Uma Singh in their respective essays. They argue against the standard Indian ‘nationalist’ depiction of the Muslim League being the principal or sole villain in the Partition of India, and stress the need for a closer look at class factors leading to consolidation of political differences between Hindu and Muslim elites. Equally important is the role of caste Hindu chauvinism and the refusal of the Congress (besides avowed Hindu supremacist groups) to fully respect and recognise Muslim rights, identity and representation in the name of a unified nationalism that was really (and still remains) a cover-up for caste Hindu domination.

Shantimoy Roy’s essay on Muslims in India’s freedom struggle refers to numerous charismatic Muslim leaders in different parts of India who led local struggles against the British. The focus is here particularly on Bengal, where numerous such Muslim heroes rallied the support of local Hindus, too, particularly from the so-called ‘low’ castes. Abida Samiuddin’s essay examines the critical role of Urdu newspapers, from the early nineteenth century onwards, in promoting anti-British sentiments and exhorting Muslims, Hindus and others to engage in a joint struggle against British imperialism.

The remaining essays in the book look at the role of various other non-Hindu communities in India’s freedom movement. Harish Puri discusses the Kuka movement among the ‘low’ caste Sikhs and the Ghadar movement, again largely Sikh-dominated, showing how mobilizing to protect and promote a certain form of community identity and to struggle against colonialism could be so deeply interlinked. T.R.Sharma’s essay looks at the complex role of the Akali Dal as it sought to negotiate Sikh rights while at the same time participating in the anti-colonial movement. Aloo Dastur’s essay examines the role of noted Parsis in the Indian National Congress and various local anti-colonial initiatives in the Bombay Presidency. Teresa Albuquerque’s paper discusses the participation of Christians in various social reform efforts and in the larger struggle for Indian freedom, noting that this was often at the cost of antagonizing white Church leaders, the vast majority of whom were committed to the British Raj.

This collection of essays is a valuable counter to official and popular historiography of India’s freedom movement. It forcefully challenges the notion of Indian patriotism being a solely ‘upper’ caste Hindu monopoly. The title of the book is apt to be a little misleading, however. There is no single majority community in India, the Hindu ‘majority’ being a myth that exists only on paper and not on the ground. Hence, to speak of the role of ‘minorities’ in the freedom struggle, as contrasted with that of the ‘majority’, is misleading. Further, the book suffers from a complete silence on the role of such marginalised communities as Dalits and Adivasis in the freedom struggle (while it does include an essay on Sindhis, focusing essentially on Sindhi Hindus), this being probably the result of the conventional, although hardly forgivable, tendency to club these communities together with caste Hindus as ‘Hindus’, thereby building up the myth of a Hindu monolith, which is, in turn, used to justify caste Hindu hegemony.

Re: # 46
> ...[lots of crap] ....
> ...destroying the peace process of the whole subcontinent...blah blah...

Mohtarma (did i use it right ?),
let me try to put it across to you as plainly as I can. There is N-O peace process going on
between Aryavrata and Pukiland. What we have right now is a cessation of hostilities.
And only OVERT Hostilities. Covert hostilities are, and will be, going on.

Our two species are way way different for ANY peace to come about.
And only one will survive.