Surviving Musharraf's Exit?

Re: # 400 kaal

very true... For sake of argument, can a muslim person be also a "indic" person?

Hindu-Muslim 'fight' (if any) is between two groups seeking opposite ends. Both/either may be secular, or not. That is hardly relevant to this discussion.

Re: # 394 GT

DM is wrong. Most hindus are in fact secular - because they do NOT demand merger of church or temmple and state.

What DM probably meant to say "most hindus are still communal"... that may still be true... Most hindus probably have a negative view of muslims and vice versa... But that has nothing to do with secularism itself...

dm sahib, GT has a great point. We will keep tying ourselves in knots until we recognize that India is for Indic peoples, where some Muslims happen to live, and Pakistan is for Muslims, where some Hindus happen to live.

#397 Posted by dost_mittar

d_m sahib,

" ...he is questioning their....". Sir, "questioning" ka sawal hi peyda nehin hota. We know, and hence are sure, that the "katwas" are actually (i.e. and'r and'r se) pure Pakistanis.

d_m sahib,

"they deny the existence of non-hindus in the country"

In a quantitative sense they are right, aren't they? I mean "most" non-hindus in India are Pakistanis anyways.

GT:

"it is OK for Pakistanis to call Indians "Hindus", for most Indian Hindus call Indian Muslims "Pakistanis"."

The two are not the same. When a Hindu calls Muslims Pakistanis, he is questioning their loyalty to India; when Pakistanis call Indians Hindus, they deny the existence of non-hindus in the country.

guru#390:

I was not referring to the Hindu faith but to the Hindu communal identity.

d_m sahib,

There we go. Everything is now clarified:

"Dharmic panths are secular by design. Abrahmic religions are imperialists by design."

d_m sahib,

"India is a secular country but it does not mean that most Indians are secular."

But sir, if most of the citizens are not secular how much comfort (apart from bragging rights) can we derive from the claim that the country is secular? Furthermore, at a general level (and I am not talking about tahmed ji here) it is OK for Pakistanis to call Indians "Hindus", for most Indian Hindus call Indian Muslims "Pakistanis". OK, this is getting a bit confusing for me here. Maybe Kaal or Sadna can sort out matters from here on.

Re: # 390:
"
India is a secular country but it does not mean that most Indians are secular.
"
People are secular if they do not insist the local patil/patedar/village chief needs to be of their own religion. Since Hinduism is not a re-ligion (Abrahmic concept) it does not ask its followers to make sure that the regal-ity is also Hindu. Hinduism does not have concept of Dar-ul-harb.

Dharmic panths are secular by design. Abrahmic religions are imperialists by design.

dm #391 actually, if you look at the posts before that, the sequence was like this:

1. bjkumar invited me to extend my criticism of mush to the pakistan army.

2. i in turn invited him to show me how by criticizing the indian army.

3. bj said it was delusional to think the indian army could be criticized, and noted that jay thakeray and paki-paki-arjun were right.

4. i agreed with bjkumar and confirmed to him that i was indeed a delusional paki who failed to understand the hindu attributes of piety, riches and general lack of imperfections that jay and arjun have taken great pains to bring to our attention.

In sort - i did indeed start not just by criticising the indian army but by inviting bjkumar to start with that.

Hope this clarifies. Thanks for confirming that you did not see any blanket condemnation of hindus (or any other community, I hope) in anything i have written.

tahmed32:

I did look at your post carefully. You did not condemn all Hindus, you never have as far as I can remember. But people criticised Pakistan and you criticised Hindus; I would have had no problem if you had criticised Indian army or any other Indian institution in response to an attack on the Pak army.

hamidm#382:

There is no contradiction between your post and what I said. India is a secular country but it does not mean that most Indians are secular. The point I was trying to make was that one cannot equate India with Hindus, otherwise it wouldn't have the kind of communal tensions that it still has.

#386 Posted by mohar11:

Moharuddin mian,

How are you doing today? I find it very difficult to say this, but yes, you are right when you say that "India will always be a hindoo nation" (though I am not very sure about the "always" bit). It is also true that most Indians identify with their caste/religion first and then with their nation (and that only when they know that they have one). I see nothing wrong with this for both are basically tribal identities. Also all these "tribes" hate and look down upon each other (even if this is physically impossible, you get my drift).

I simply hope that instead of the "same same" mantra people realize and respect (or are forced to respect) their boundaries. Furthermore, I hope that each jati/sect/whatever is able to garner enough political and social power such that it is able to protect itself from others and what we call a 'state'.

Rest, who cares.

Regards.

Re: # 373 Posted by hamidm2 on April 3, 2008 4:14:29 am

Hamid mian,

Totally agreed with your post. But, maybe this is only in the west, wherein people from the sub-continent, muslims or any other religious group, are in the first phase of developing a cult, by isolating themselves to solidify their doctrine and eemaan. For example, the bahais, sikhs, and ahmedis are behaving the same.