India Unvarnished

re: macgupta#100

Couldn`t agree more..with everything you said and the freakin Pope.

regards,

Kabuli

Murad,

Thanks for your responses.

You say:
``you are right about the importance of myths and I understand you will react to any efforts to deflate them``

Murad, any individual(even your own) interpretation of Hindu philosophy and mythology in search of his own `moksha` does not depend on anyone else`s concurrence in the matter. Each of us seeks the truth in our own way, there is no starting point or ending point, there is no sage no: 101 who is the definitive fountainhead, there is no prophet no: 562 who can say `enough is enough`. Hence the use of the word `deflation` is rather pretentious.

You also say :
``myths are important and are to people what dreams are to individuals``

I suspect you mean a mythology pertains to a `group/collective/community` belief whereas dreams pertain to individuals. That is not quite accurate, mythology in Hinduism provides vehicles for even an individual to feel a personal relationship with the Absolute through manifestations of its identifiable quantifiable qualities or deities.

``There is however a down side when mythology begins to be treated as something sacred and is used to justify violent or derogatory political or sectarian actions.``

I will never presume as you do, to tell someone what should be sacred to them and what should not be. If the Prophethood of Muhammad, or Jesus or the shrines at Mecca and Medina and Jerusalem and Bethlehem are considered sacred by some, other things are considered sacred by others.

Let us address the sacredness of myths, their historicity and mass faith with examples, since I am no gyani. In South India, I knew of many who made a trip to worship at a famous Christian shrine built by Portugese sailors a century or two ago in Velankanni where the patron saint `Our Lady of Health` is believed to cure illnesses. Such a trip is considered a last resort in illness even by many Hindus. Similarly, a particular church of Infant Jesus in a city of S. India attracts huge crowds on Thursdays to the extent the city bus service has to arrange special trips on that day of the week. You find the local newspapers carry advertisements by individuals of all faiths thanking Infant Jesus for granting wishes after offerings of devotion.

The questions to be asked are, is the faith and belief of so many based on myths ? If so, are these myths justified in being considered sacred? If they are myths and considered sacred, must they also be `deflated`?

Now, you have earlier mentioned historicity as a tool to `deflate` myths, so I presume you mean all myths and not just Hindu myths.

Historicity: Yes, Mary probably did exist as a historical figure. The historicity of her divinity status as Virgin Mary and her miraculous powers, can be called conclusive or inconclusive depending on who is saying, there is no categorical and undeniable evidence. Regarding the basis of many people`s faith in the saint`s healing powers in relation to the Velankanni Church , I doubt there is sufficient conclusive evidence to prove historicity or authenticity.

The same question may be asked for the Infant Jesus shrine I mentioned or any dargah or temple anywhere where many people worship in faith and believe their labors have been rewarded. I doubt that cause and effect can be so easily proved or even disproved. One cannot objectify the effects of faith on people and their lives, leave aside prove or disprove conclusively the workings of divinity in which faith is reposed.

Now I ask again, are you saying people must not worship at Velankanni or any other shrine when all hope is lost because that is only a `myth which has begun to be treated as something sacred`? Or some myths are OK, others are not?

Now let us return to Hinduism. A Hindu is not called on to believe in the historicity of a myth or any mythological figure as a test or requirement of good faith, unlike in Islam or Christianity. Moreover, noone can `dictate` the terms of faith to others. Hence those who demand alleigiance to Hindu symbols can easily be proved to be of malafide intentions without affecting the symbolism of the symbols or myths. Hence those who claim alleigiance for themselves on Ram`s behalf can be shown to be on doctrinal quicksand without detracting from the significance of Ram as a religious figure or object lesson in Hindu tenets.

``is used to justify violent or derogatory political or sectarian actions.``

Now maybe your argument is that only myths which lead to violent and derogatory political or sectarian actions deserve urgent deflation by historicity. Then the whole world is your playground, Protestants vs Catholic in N.Ireland, Jews vs Muslims in the Middle East, so much history related to Christianity. And let us not forget the starving beseiged women of Afghanistan. Has deflation of myths really been a viable option?

I have one banal argument, here, if a cult bearing JFK`s name a century from now, finds some reason to commit violent and political actions, would such actions be more justified even if every moment of JFK`s life has been documented with full authenticity and no myth attached?

Separate the actions and the myths. Its much easier to do so in Hinduism. Those who claim ownership on myths cannot justify themselves in Hinduism. A look at the sectarian divide between Shias and Sunnis will be found to be based on what many can as easily call `myths treated as something sacred and used to justify violent or derogatory political and sectarian actions`. Must we do away with Islam altogether or the supposed `myth` of the significance of the martrydom of one of its prominent figures to stop its misuse in perpetuating violence an dissent?

Where the Ram Janmabhoomi issue is concerned(I suspect the unspoken motivation for this quest for deflation), I personally have no opinion either way except that it will be a dire disrespect to build a temple whose foundations are soaked in blood of innocents.

Instead of getting sidetracked into the issue of mass devotion toward Ram(being only half the story, the mass devotion toward Allah being the other half) as the spurious primary cause , I think the objective Indian intelligensia ought recognise it as fundamentally a political issue where a paradigm shift in Hindu-Muslim relations after Independence is sought

The old perceived conquered-conqueror relation has to now change to mutual respect for each others religious aspirations and mutual compromise as equal participants of the future. Maybe many think that given the secular basis of the Indian state, all have a equal right to demand and expect these from each other. If such a `New Contract` had been accomplished without politics and without violence it would have been something to be proud of, we missed the chance. Hope future opportunities are better handled, and that the buddh-jan come up with creative workable solutions. Hopefully they willnot take the intellectually-lazy route of thinking that purging of each other or each other`s objects of faith is the only way.

I suggest `The Elements of Hinduism` Stephen Cross, 1994, publ. Element Books as a quick overview.

Thanks for your patience.
Sadhana

Sent via email by Murad Baig


Sadna.

I agree that we each seek and can interpret our own truths and that there are many examples of cross-religious homage to sacred things. Many Hindus go to the Dargas of Muslim Sufi saints and Hindus even preside at that of Sai Baba of Shirdi. There are many examples in all countries.

Perhaps deflate is the wrong word. I do not wish to disparage anyone`s beliefs but to try to present a more realistic or down-to earth perspective to many common practices. I personally dislike superstition that I believe many priests or professional practitioners of religion deliberately foist on the people for their own gain or for the gain of their royal or political patrons.

I confess that I may have been a bit provocative but my effort has been to try to get people thinking analytically about the entire panorama of issues that colour Hindustani thinking. After we all tear apart the many dissenting views on each subject we may end up with a clearer perspective.

Sadna and MacGupta refer to Ram Janambhumi.

What are the facts? Is there any empirical evidence that Babur built it or ordered it built in an area that he may not have even ruled? Did he or his armies even get to Ayodhya during his tempestuous five-year rule at Delhi?

If the earliest archaeological evidence of urbanisation in the area dates to after the 8th century BC, how could Ram be so historically recent? There are remains of a temple under it but it was probably Jain or Buddhist. The earliest `Hindu` temple dates to 5th century AD.

Is it not strange that the Sankara Vijaya a work detailing the emerging (post Vedic) Hindu religion by Ananda Giri a disciple of Shankaracharya, about the 10th century AD has no references at all to the worship of Krishna or Ram?

Truth. Thanks for the thoughts. No apology needed.

Pennathur. Thanks for the wise words.

Friend. I need to address your queries about Shankara and Mihirkula.

I have read many passing references to Badrinath, Kedarnath, Puri, the temple at Srinagar and others originally being Buddhist. The Buddhists were avid traders who had no Brahminical aversion to Arth and their monasteries were almost always near major trade routes.

Concerning their conversion to Hinduism there are several accounts. Hsuen Tsang`s accounts in the reign of the Buddhist king Harsha in the 7th century might be considered biased but most of his accounts including distances have usually been very accurate. He seems to write about both Buddhist and Hindu places of worship quite objectively.

E.S.Oakley in an otherwise interesting and sympathetic book `Holy Himalaya` quotes Dr. Daniel Wright who is much more forceful…

`` The Nepalese and Kumaun traditions agree that Sankara came to the Himalaya and drove out or suppressed the Buddhists by force. He found a curious intermixture of the two religions, Buddhist or Bauddamargi priests officiating at temples of Pashupati and all four castes following the religion of Buddha….

(According to Nepalese sources). Some who would not allow that they were defeated were killed, Wherefore many confessed that they were vanquished though in reality not convinced that they were in error. These Sankara ordered to do Hinsa (to sacrifice animals) which is in direct opposition to the tenets of the Buddhist religion. He likewise compelled the Bhikshunis or nuns to marry and forced the grihastas to shave the knot of hair on the crown of their heads when performing the `charakarma` or first shaving of the head. …put a stop to their religious ceremonies…84,000 works on the Buddhist religion were searched and destroyed….

Having overcome the Buddhists he introduced the worship of Shiva in place of the religion of Buddha… but he was obliged to leave Bauddhamargis in some places as priests where he found no other persons…

…what Shankara did in Nepal he did also in Kumaun and Garhwal. Buddhists were driven from the shrines at Kedar and Badari and Sankara established disciples of his own there and in many places in the Himalayas and preached the efficacy of pilgrimage to these holy places.``

Atkinson points out that the constant influx of Brahminical pilgrims in Kumaun and Garhwal prevented the relapse into Buddhism.

The Katyuri Hindu kings only established themselves after the 8th century AD.

Concerning Mihirikula. I have never heard that the Huns were followers of Shiva. They were warlike nomadic tribes from east of the Pamirs. Most nomadic people worshipped elemental sky gods and not the animal/ pashupati gods of the forest dwellers or the goddesses of the cultivator societies. There were many similar deities worshipped in ancient Babylon, Africa and even in Europe who were not the Hindu Shiva. In India too Shiva was never a Vedic deity and seems to have been a tribal deity who was later incorporated into the evolving Hindu tradition during the period of the Puranas. Many ancient kings including Kanishka struck coins showing numerous local deities without being necessarily a follower of them all.

The Jain tradition has Toramana as a follower of their faith. I can`t find the source showing where Mihirikula was converted by Brahmins but have noted a date of 515 AD when the event was supposed to have occurred. Accounts of his activities are recorded by Hsuen Tsang and more elaborately by Kalhana in his 12th century Rajatarangini.

In almost all religions, there was regrettably a revivalistic period when some bigots violently destroyed the objects worshipped by others just as all of them have also had so much to admire. Many think that Hinduism has always been tolerant but that is also a myth even if it has been extraordinarily tolerant for the most part. The orthodox Brahmins were not tolerant of the emerging local Bhakti faiths let alone those of outsiders.

Murad

Murad#103

``Concerning Mihirikula. I have never heard that the Huns were followers of Shiva. They were warlike nomadic tribes from east of the Pamirs. Most nomadic people worshipped elemental sky gods and not the animal/ pashupati gods of the forest dwellers or the goddesses of the cultivator societies. There were many similar deities worshipped in ancient Babylon, Africa and even in Europe who were not the Hindu Shiva``

That`s why I objected to your attempt at ``unvarnishing India`` in 4 days without checking the references. I will post some of them at the end of this message. Please also note that my main objection is to your attempt to indicate that Mihirakula`s cruelty was due to his ``recent conversion`` to Hinduism. Another very obvious tendency I can see in your articles is to ``cut hinduism`` in size. You indicate that Shiva is not a hindu god, earlier you indicatd that Ganesh and Hanuman are tribal gods and they are not hindu gods. This just shows a lack of knowledge about Hinduism (or may be a bias attitude).

Anyway, here are some references to Mihirakula for your reading pleasure.

http://reenic.utexas.edu/asnic/subject/peoplesandlanguages.html

PEOPLES AND LANGUAGES IN PRE-ISLAMIC INDUS VALLEY

--Dr. Tariq Rahman, Fulbright Visiting Fellow

The White Huns even destroyed Gandhara, a centre of Buddhist civilization, in 450 A.D. 71 and Sung-Yun, the Chinese traveller who visited this area in 520 A.D., found Taxila being ruled by Mihirakula (d. circa 532 A.D.) who worshipped the Hindu deity Shiva and used the Brahmi script.72

http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/9/0,5716,121169+32+111197,00.html

The first Huna king in India was Toramana (early 6th century), whose inscriptions have been found as far south as Eran (Madhya Pradesh). His son Mihirakula, a patron of Saivism, is recorded in Buddhist tradition as uncouth and extremely cruel.

Against Communalising History

D. N. Jha

Professor of History,

University of Delhi

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/

ABC 20/20 Friday September 1, 2000

Why is tiny Hong Kong so rich and gigantic India so poor? One of the most common answers in recent decades has been population density: There are simply too many people in places like India, or so goes the conventional wisdom.



India does have a free press, freedom of religion and expression and a democratic government (elevating its ranking on the less economics-oriented Freedom House survey). Well it`s the largest democracy in the world.

But its thicket of business regulations and bureaucratic restrictions is so dense — and wealth so difficult to create there — that Indians endure a standard of living

as low as that of communist countries. John Stossel visits Calcutta, India interviews prominent Indians in USA Dinesh D`souza, Silicon Valley CEO Kanwal Rekhi and West Bengal politicians.

http://abcnews.go.com/onair/DailyNews/chat_stossel0901.html

Chat with John Stossel

Moderator: Why did you choose to focus on Hong Kong and India in your program?



John Stossel: Because so many people believe natural resources are the key to success and high population the root to failure. India and Hong Kong demonstrate the falsity of that.

Moderator: What are some concrete steps that nations like India and North Korea could take to improve their current conditions?



John Stossel: Stop regulating people to death.

Stingray says: Do you seriously think that economic planning, not astronomical population growth, has anything to do with the status of third-world nations?



John Stossel: Yes. Didn`t you just watch the program?

Hysterics in America do believe that population growth is the root of all evil. But Hong Kong, with greater population depth than India, demonstrates that population growth isn`t the problem. Clueless, meddling bureaucrats who think they know better how to run your life are the problem.

The Hindus that are posting ridiculous backlashes to the authors objective analysis of history and tradition in India are being very unHindu indeed. During the Buddha`s time, Hinduism was not so dogmatic. New ideas were welcomed, old ideas questioned, and insight gained. The Upanishads were themselves written as a result of analytical discourse. Hinduism is not a religion that stopped evolving when some random person decreed that they had the word of god all to themselves. Therefore, Hindus should stop acting so defensive. I say question every damn thing. That`s true Hinduism. It`s a religion like Buddhism that evolves with the human experience- as humans understand more about their world. Buddhism was born from Buddhism during such a period of free thought. In fact, I`d say that the Golden Age of the areas now known (temporarily) as Pakistan and Afghanistan was during the Buddhist period. True human achievement has been sinking in these areas since Buddhism`s demise.

As per your assertion the Avestha is older than Rig Veda. Even the most ardent linguistic proponents of the so called Arayan Invasion Theory will not agree with that!

The s to h sibilant shift can occur only ONE WAY. So Sindhu can change to Hindu but the reverse is not possible.

Now there is clear geological evidance in favor of the Sarasvati river drying up around 1900 BCE. That is when the Indo- Iranian rift probably occured. Iranian themselves trace their roots to the east not to the west.

When the rift occurred the Vedic gods became Avestan demons and the other way round.

Thus the Parsi God Ahura came from Vedic demons Asura. Sarasvati changed to Haraquiti

Salaam Murad Sahib,

I am very impressed by your knowledge about the subject of human history. I have a question that no one seems to be able to answer. I hope you will be able to oblige.

The question basically any information about the ancient civilization that existed at the southern most tip of the Arabian penninsula more than 10,000 years ago. (Present day Yemen, yet they far outdate even the Persian settlers who colonized Yemen thousands of years ago.) I have read in the Yousaf Ali Quran tafseer, details (at the bottom of some surah, I can cite if need be) about this people.

They were the original race from which some of the more amazing parts of the Arabic language and wisdom come. They used stone tablets for writing, and in this Quran tafseer, I read that even to this day sometimes stone tablets of extremely fine workmanship can be found which no one understands because no one is even capable of conjecturing who these people were, where they came from or where the ended up disappearing to.

Any information would be most welcomed.

I can also be contacted at:

http://aaas.i.am/

Email: aaas@i.am

thank you sir.

Seeker of Yet More.

The answers provided are reasonably good EXCEPT the fact that the author tries to defend Islam at any cost. Statements like ``Islam was avowedly a religion of peace`` are the worst lies spread by Islamic apologists. How can a religion that advocates torture and persecution of infidels call itself a religion of peace?

While the author has every right to criticize Hindus and their entrenched clergy, the Brahmins, fairness demands that he also expose the mindless violence and bigotry promoted by Islam right from the time of Muhammad. Otherwise, the history of Islam in India and elsewhere will remain sugar-coated fables.

WEDNESDAY JANUARY 09 2002



http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C7-2002013426%2C00.html

Cover story

THE TIMES, UK



A state of war



BY TREVOR FISHLOCK



The dispute over Kashmir has brought India and Pakistan to the brink of nuclear war. But why has this beautiful state become the subcontinent`s powder keg?



Poets hymned it as a land of love and languor. In 1627 the dying emperor Jahangir, who shaped its blissful gardens, was asked to name his last desire. “Only Kashmir,” he murmured. “Only Kashmir.”

India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, promised melodramatically that its name was written upon his heart. Today, millions make the same emotive claim.

Passions for Kashmir run hot and bitter, the bayonets almost touch and the urge for war is strong. Two rivals, two ideas, two faiths stand nose to nose in one of the world’s most dangerous places. One mistake or misjudgment and the spark falls on the fuse.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars, two of them over Kashmir. The great bulk of their armies are based along the frontier that runs through Punjab and Kashmir. The border is always tense.

In Kashmir there has been an almost permanent grumbling small war of artillery bombardment. Apart from the all-out conflicts, India and Pakistan have two or three times pulled back from the brink, and now the assessments of their military power have to include their nuclear capability. There was a particularly dangerous stand-off in 1990.

It was inevitable that the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13 would bring India and Pakistan once more to the edge of the abyss. It was an echo of the October suicide bomb attack on the Kashmir assembly. The Parliament in Delhi is the heart and emblem of what India stands for. Now India is raging.

Poor Kashmir. It lies in the Himalayan ramparts where the borders of India, Pakistan and China rub together. Reality mocks its beauty. There is no escaping the permeating melancholy of a land that lies under the gun. It is as if malevolent gods, jealous of its loveliness, placed a curse upon it.

The poison entered the garden in 1947 when the war-weary British quit their Indian empire and partitioned it. They had no wish to cut it up: one of their imperial achievements, they said, was to have united India and made it secure. They divided it to meet the demands of Muslim leaders who said that Hindus and Muslims could not live together in one country, that the communities formed two separate nations. Pakistan was therefore created as a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims.

Britain ruled India with the co-operation of more than 500 Indian princes, a galaxy of maharajahs, rajahs, ranas, raos, khans, mirs, jams, nizams and nawabs, loyal to the British crown, well-oiled with flattery, some fantastically rich and a few of them barmy. In the summer of 1947, these rulers had to choose whether to take their states into India or Pakistan. It was a personal decision, without referendum.

Public opinion hardly came into it. Most princes joined India. Most knew that they would be extinguishing themselves as a ruling class, but it was clear to all but a few that the game was up. On the eve of independence, all the princes had made up their minds except four.

The Maharajah of Kashmir, Sir Hari Singh, was one of the ditherers. He was vain, pompous and addicted to hunting bears and shooting ducks. As a young man he had an unfortunate scrape in London, being found in bed with a woman at the Savoy Hotel and milked for a lot of money by a blackmailer pretending to be the woman’s husband.

At Partition, Kashmir, more fully known as Jammu and Kashmir, was in a key position: a prize because it was a large state and famously beautiful, a honeymooners’ resort of lakes and cool alpine meadows.

Given its place on the map, it could have swung either to India or to Pakistan. Because of its overwhelming Muslim majority, Pakistan’s new leaders expected that it would join their Islamic entity. But the maharajah had to decide — and he was a Hindu. This was not unusual. In princely India, Muslims often ruled Hindus and vice versa. But Hari Singh dithered. He could not believe that the British would really go home. He did not want to join Pakistan because he could not bear the thought of his state being subsumed. He dreamt that Kashmir could somehow be an independent country and he could keep his power.

India and Pakistan became independent in August. Hari Singh was still dithering in October. As he fiddled, the storm broke. Thousands of Pathan warriors from the North-West Frontier, bordering Afghanistan, rushed into Kashmir, vowing to seize it for Pakistan. Although they were a rabble, they might have succeeded. They were close to Srinagar, the capital, when they were delayed by their lust for loot and women. While they pillaged towns and raped girls and nuns, the hapless Hari Singh gathered up his diamonds and Purdey shotguns and fled his palace in a motorcade.

India acted fast and decisively. In a flurry of action the maharajah agreed to join India, and Indian forces flew to save Srinagar. This was the first Kashmir war, not an all-out confrontation but a series of fights and communal conflicts. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of Pakistan, wanted to send the new Pakistan regular Army into action, but did not do so when the absurdity of the situation was pointed out to him: the forces of India and Pakistan shared a commander-in-chief, Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, while many officers on both sides were British.

Kashmir was left divided along the line where fighting stopped in 1948. A United Nations ceasefire came into force on January 1, 1949. In 1965 Pakistan tried and failed to annexe Kashmir and was defeated in brief and bitter fighting. At one stage Indian forces were almost at the gates of Lahore and could easily have taken it. Pakistan’s leaders believed that Kashmiris would welcome Pakistani troops as liberators. It was a shock that they did not. In 1971 India and Pakistan went to war again, India assisting the secession of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh. Pakistan was left truncated and humiliated.

Yet the story of a vacillating maharajah and the ensuing bloody quarrel over territory is only the half of it.

Kashmir is a tragedy for its divided people and a continuing source of danger in a subcontinent inhabited by a fifth of the world’s population. The tragedy has deep roots. Kashmir is the offspring of bitterly divorced parents. Pakistan aches for it but will never possess it. India will never let it go: it is not negotiable. The trouble is that both sides define themselves by this feud.

Their mutual suspicions date from the 8th-century Muslim conquest of western India and the many hundreds of years of Mogul rule that were brought to an end by the British Raj. For India’s Hindu majority, independence in 1947 was a reclamation of their vast land, the end of centuries of foreign domination. Nehru and others believed passionately that this new India would be a daring concept, an embracing of all its religious, linguistic and regional diversity, a magnificent secular state.

The steely and intractable Jinnah did not believe it. His new country of Pakistan grew out of that scepticism, the belief that Muslims in India would be vulnerable, second-class citizens.

Pakistan was an invented state, a by-product of the great Indian struggle for independence. It evolved in the last few years of British rule among people who wanted to escape religious and political discrimination in the new order. Landowners especially thought they would lose out in India. Democracy barely made the journey to Pakistan.

In a sense Pakistan remains stranded in 1947. Its great debate has centred for half a century on what it is for and what it should be. Jinnah mused that it could be a secular country. But in that case, what was the point of Partition? Some of his successors said that Pakistan was nothing if not Islamic and determined to make it more so, a military theocracy.

Yet Islam proved an unreliable glue. It did not cement Pakistan and East Pakistan. Bangladesh erupted as the assertion of Bengali language and culture. Nor did it cement the disparate parts of Pakistan itself — Punjab, Baluchistan, Sindh and the North- West Frontier — or, indeed, the many shades of Islamic belief. Thus Kashmir is useful, the “unfinished business of Partition”. However much Pakistanis disagree about the nature of their society, they find common cause in Kashmir, the belief that they were robbed in 1947. This is the unifying insult. It is why Pakistan has supported Kashmiri insurgents. India’s treatment of Kashmiris during the long years of internal strife are held as proof that Jinnah was right, that Muslims needed their homeland.

It is true that India could have managed Kashmir more wisely, less roughly. But Pakistan has to live with the fact that there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. India has the second largest Muslim population in the world: evidently Hindus and Muslims do live together in a secular society, Nehru’s idea of India, even if it is not always easy. And Kashmir, the only Indian state with a Muslim majority, is in Indian minds the shining fact of secular India. Its existence throws the question to Pakistan again: what was Partition for? India has a powerful idea of its identity. It is the giant of South Asia, its Armed Forces are huge and it is proud of its democracy, even if this is somewhat battered. Pakistan, on the other hand, does not enjoy such a positive identity. It thinks of itself in terms of its neighbour and endures the negative of being Not India.

It means that even if the impossible were to happen, that Kashmir should somehow become part of Pakistan, the anxieties and insecurities of Pakistan would endure. There would have to be another issue by which Pakistan could seek to establish its identity and purpose.

In the meantime the two nations face each other again — and judging from what we see and hear, there are many on both sides desperate to fight. Centuries of prejudice are poured into the funnel of Kashmir.

People on both sides treasure the slights of history. There is an endless misunderstanding of each other’s beliefs and opinions. Estrangement is total. Trivial matters become huge. Hindu nationalists complain that Muslims cheer for Pakistan during Test matches. In both India and Pakistan, keen teams of monitors comb through guide books and encyclopaedias searching for maps that might contain instances of “cartographic aggression” — inaccuracies that seem to favour one side or the other.

Words are traps, and there is a sense that a comma could cause a crisis. But the opinions of outsiders are not welcome. For this is a feud between cousins, a quarrel in the family. It could hardly be more acrid and perilous.

AN ICON OF WORLD & INDIA BISMILLAH KHAN IS BEGGING WHAT KASHMIR CAN EXPECT MORE

If bharat Ratna recepient some sort of Award ,obviously not much worth in his own country but his Shenai c.d. sells for premium dollars both here & Japan

Now if one of a kind player of a shehnai not many players out side indo pak continent ,is begging (see pic in thelink ) what chance does average joe Mohommed Syed Khan has in India.May be Azharuddin ,but he found the short lived euphoria when Hindu giveth what Hindu taketh in Bharat secularism

http://www.timesofindia.com/Articleshow.asp?art_id=1174154641

THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 2002

THE TIMES OF INDIA CITIES: HYDERABAD POWERED BY

INDIATIMES

Bismillah Khan humiliated

HINA KAUSAR ALAM

TIMES NEWS NETWORK [ THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 2002 1:48:20 AM ]

YDERABAD: Shehnai maestro Ustad Bismillah Khan was in tears as he described to The Times of India, the hardships he was put through over the last two days by the state government and the Andhra Pradesh Lalita Kala Vedika (APLKV), a private cultural organisation.

He was made to run from pillar to post for a place to stay and to claim his performance fee. ``Hamara man Hyderabad se chal gaya (I am heart-broken with Hyderabad),`` Khan Saheb said.

The 86-year-old Bharat Ratna was to perform at Necklace Road as part of the Festival of Andhra Pradesh on Tuesday. But the show was cancelled due to bad weather. He was also scheduled to play at Ravindra Bharati on Wednesday in a programme arranged by APLKV, which too did not happen. He will now perform at Necklace Road on Thursday evening.

APLKV founder R V Ramanamurthy took the initiative to invite the ustad to perform at the Festival of AP. Ramanamurthy said, ``I approached Tourism Director G Kishen Rao in December with a proposal to honour the ustad and asked him if Bismillah Khan`s performance could be included in the Festival of AP.`` He says Kishan Rao approved, but only if the maestro agreed to a Rs 3 lakh fee instead of his regular fee of Rs 5 lakh. Bismillah Khan agreed.

According to Ramanamurthy, Kishan Rao agreed to contribute Rs 2 lakh towards the fee with the APLKV pooling in Rs 1 lakh. This deal agreed, APLKV was told to make the arrangements, Ramanamurthy says.

Ramanamurthy went ahead and arranged for Khan`s travel to Hyderabad on Jan. 7, one day ahead of the Necklace Road performance. But in the meantime, the deal between APLKV and the tourism director to split the bill fell through. Ramanamurthy claims Kishan Rao backed out of his commitment to contribute Rs 2 lakh. The latter offered to give just Rs 1 lakh.

So, just a day before the performance, Ramanamurthy says he had a maestro on his hands with his accommodation not yet arranged for and no money to pay for the performance. When Bismillah Khan reached Hyderabad, he was taken to the state guest house Manjira, but had to wait in the taxi for nearly two hours.

``I pleaded with the authorities to let him stay but they refused as he was not a state guest,`` Ramanamurthy claimed. Kishan Rao denied Ramanamurthy`s allegations. ``I did not make any promises,`` he said. ``I was actually trying to rescue the deal and see to it that the maestro does not face any more trouble,`` Kishan Rao said.

After two days, Bismillah Khan was on Wednesday given the status of state guest and the state government agreed to meet all his expenses. Despite his harrowing experience, Bismillah Khan said he was finally going to perform at Necklace Road on Thursday.

My congratulations to Mr Murad Ali Baig for the

clarity and readableness of his excellent essay

``India Unvarnished``. He should consider publishing

it as a pamphlet, or if he has time, expanding it

into a book.

It is the first time I have read that the Arabs

were repulsed several times in their invasion of

Sind. Some of the other factual information and

his commentary on events was most interesting.

Thanks to ``Chowk`` and Sulekha.com for making this

essay available on the Internet.

Congratulations to Mr MA Baig for his very readable essay,``India Unvarnished``. It deserves to be widely distributed as a pamphlet or a book.

I hope we shall hear more from him in the future.

MORAL OF THE STORY

Hindus are fools/weak/corrupt

Muslims are smart/brave/honest

So ,when do u plan to get pakistani citizenship Mr. Baig.A braveheart like u must not live in a country full of infidels.

Hi,

Your research seems to have lacked a clear insight and at the same time is biased.

To me it seems more like Brahmin bashing.

Whatever good india could achieve was only due to the Buddhists (before Islamic invasion) and in the later phase attributed to thePersians, Moghuls,..

``Though it may have initially been a revolt against the oppressive Brahmin practices especially their lavish sacrifices, it propagated the concepts of Karma, Dharma, Ahimsa reincarnation that later became a core part of

Hindu philosophy especially through the later Upanishads.``

Now what the hell is this?

Isn`t that Guatama wanted to find the reason for human suffering, why a human has to go through sickness, suffering of old life and finally the death.

Didn`t he want to find the reason for this suffering. Finally he did find it, which was desire.

So how do you say that ``it may have initially been a revolt against the oppressive Brahmin practices``

Also, he started penancing, starving and went through hardships as these were the methods to achieve Siddhi and various other powers but failed

(rather was not onvinced) and left it halfway.

And then you go on to say that ``it propagated the concepts of Karma, Dharma, Ahimsa and reincarnation that later became a core part of

Hindu philosophy especially through the later Upanishads.``

Dharma and Ahimsa were there since the time of Jainism which was practised way before Buddism took form.

``Buddhism, as well as Jainism, encouraged industry and commerce which the Brahmins considered `arth`, or earthly, and thus impure and undesirable. It was the trade and commerce of the Buddhist era that actually contributed to so much of the greatness of India.``

Well if you go through the defination of each and every caste/class

Brahmin is supposed to learn and teach thats his dsuty he is not supposed to collect wealth but live by the donations (bikshas) given to him by the warrior class

The kshtriya class is bound by the duty to protect the country i.e.defeed and wage war

Only the vaishnav is supposed to engage in bussiness

``Alexander`s enemies were not Indian or Hindu. There were no national boundaries at the time and Buddhism was the strongest religion of the time in

India.``

Religion at that time didn`t define national boundaries as it does today. And ofcourse there was never a war like situation b/t the vedic and the budhist thoughts. These crusades and jehads are the product of the ``revealed religions`` like Islam and Christianity. So it does not really matter whether Vedic or Buddhist thoughts hold sway on the people because the culturally the people were the same.

And ofcourse it was a Brahmin Kautilya who was running from pillar to post to form a united stand against the Alexander.

``Did Hindu rulers encourage violent religious persecutions?

These question is like how many Muslim rulers encourage tolerant religion practices?

Ofcourse its just a handful of them.

``It was this spectacular wealth and not the wealth of the land that attracted robbers like Mahmud of Ghazni``

If I am not wrong this guy invaded the northen parts of the Indian subcontinent 11 years in a row. So you mean to say that every time after being looted and gutted down, the poor hindus used to rebuild and enrich their temples so that the robber won`t go empty handed the next year.

``They even took control of the tomb of a Muslim saint, the Sai Baba at Shirdi in Maharashtra.``

Now this is highly ridiculous, how do you know that Saibaba was a Muslim saint. I have read extensively about the saint. Even his close acquantiances could not determine this secret and he never answered this question. He used to say ``Allah malik`` to the hindus and ``Ram Ram`` to the muslims just to create harmaony between them. Though he used to dress like a muslim fakir, his ears were pierced. He used to stay in a abandoned masjid which he used to call Dwarkamai. Even now people don`t know his faith at the time of his birth.

`` Did betrayal cause the success of Arab incursions?``

Its been said that after the conquest the Arabs killed the entire brahmin caste of sindh .THere are two theories 1. the brahmins were the only one who offered resistance ,2. the branmins colluded with the Arabs to win against the local king and hence the arabs didn`t trus them.

Whichever is true, today there is no Brahmin caste among the Sindhis.

``Why did the Rajputs fail to ward off the Islamic threat?``

Now you should look into various aspects here.

A Rajput is a very different type of a warrior. Even a British officer had pointed out that for a Rajput honour is more important than winning a war.For him the code of conduct like fighting till death, not fleeing the battleground and not attacking a fleeing enemy are more important than a war won by deceptive means.

Have you forgotten how Alauddin Khilji deceptively captured the Rana.

Also Islam had brought a very different kind of warfare to the subcintinent. The victor now not only killed the garrison but didn`t even spared the civilian populace.

Regarding the ``johars``, it was to prevent getting dishonoured by the victors. And this happened only if defeat was imminent. The johars of Chittor was done in face of certain defeat in the hands of powerful enemies.

``Many years later, Babur was to remark:

``The Indians know how to die better than how to fight.``

Do you now that he was the first person to get cannons in the Indian subcontinent. I would say he used technology to his advantage.

And as per your long detailed essay about the warfare, such things can be written about the fall of the Mughal empire at the hands of the British, the fall of the Marathas and Sikhs at the hands of the British, the fall of the Maginot line , the fall of the Pakistani defence forces in Bangladesh

Surely defeat is an orphan.

But one thing I would like to add is the failure of teh Rajputs was because of disunity. Prithviraj routed Ghauri at Tarrain with the help pf Jaisigh(if I am right) but the internice b/t them say that he was defeated in the next war.

But the same thing happened to the Marathas, the Siks

Hence I would say that the real failure was no unity against the external force.

``Many Jat tribes settled in north India who were suspicious of Brahmin priests, rites and sacrifices found the practical simplicity of Sikhism and its freedom from caste appealing and became its main followers.``

Give me a break. Why are you dragging this poor brahmin into this. It was a custom to donate a families first son to the cause of the Khalsa. Also majority of the jats are still Hindu by faith. Also Guru Gobind himself raised the Khalsa to protect the native Dharma form the uncultured foreign forces.

``No conversions can survive in any land without conversions of the hearts. Unconvinced converts will quickly revert to their inner faiths as soon as they are unsupervised. ``

Not if generations pass practising the forced religion.

Also, conversions were for monetary benefits, personal reasons like tansen converted simplify to marry a muslim. Also, converting to islam helped some to escape death.

And please don`t say that conversion was not forcible. look at the history Sambhaji, netaji palkar, even Guru Gobind Singhjis sons are all testimony to this.

``They were originally casteless animists and not Hindu. ``

For me any one native to this land is a Hindu. Because for me it is not a religion but a culture in itself.

``Although Islam was avowedly a religion of peace it changed over the 1400 years of its history. In the early years it was the most liberal religion offering equality to all men and giving women better rights than had ever been known before. ``

That will even put the prophet to same.

The prophet himself lead his followers to loot the wealth of passing caravans. Infact he has given rules how to share a loot. This Allahs banda has to kill his maliks creations to fill the pockets of his followers.

And don`t forget that Islam spread through the Sword.

`` On his own authority he rejected 99% of the 600,000 contributions he had received.

On what basis did he select that 1% ?

``Did Colonial Britain exploit India`s wealth?``

So the Bengal famine was whose legacy?

Bengal was the richest province when the British came and became the poorest during their departure.

Hi,

Your research seems to have lacked a clear insight and at the same time is biased.

To me it seems more like Brahmin bashing.

Whatever good india could achieve was only due to the Buddhists (before Islamic invasion) and in the later phase attributed to thePersians, Moghuls,..

``Though it may have initially been a revolt against the oppressive Brahmin practices especially their lavish sacrifices, it propagated the concepts of Karma, Dharma, Ahimsa reincarnation that later became a core part of

Hindu philosophy especially through the later Upanishads.``

Now what the hell is this?

Isn`t that Guatama wanted to find the reason for human suffering, why a human has to go through sickness, suffering of old life and finally the death.

Didn`t he want to find the reason for this suffering. Finally he did find it, which was desire.

So how do you say that ``it may have initially been a revolt against the oppressive Brahmin practices``

Also, he started penancing, starving and went through hardships as these were the methods to achieve Siddhi and various other powers but failed

(rather was not onvinced) and left it halfway.

And then you go on to say that ``it propagated the concepts of Karma, Dharma, Ahimsa and reincarnation that later became a core part of

Hindu philosophy especially through the later Upanishads.``

Dharma and Ahimsa were there since the time of Jainism which was practised way before Buddism took form.

``Buddhism, as well as Jainism, encouraged industry and commerce which the Brahmins considered `arth`, or earthly, and thus impure and undesirable. It was the trade and commerce of the Buddhist era that actually contributed to so much of the greatness of India.``

Well if you go through the defination of each and every caste/class

Brahmin is supposed to learn and teach thats his dsuty he is not supposed to collect wealth but live by the donations (bikshas) given to him by the warrior class

The kshtriya class is bound by the duty to protect the country i.e.defeed and wage war

Only the vaishnav is supposed to engage in bussiness

``Alexander`s enemies were not Indian or Hindu. There were no national boundaries at the time and Buddhism was the strongest religion of the time in

India.``

Religion at that time didn`t define national boundaries as it does today. And ofcourse there was never a war like situation b/t the vedic and the budhist thoughts. These crusades and jehads are the product of the ``revealed religions`` like Islam and Christianity. So it does not really matter whether Vedic or Buddhist thoughts hold sway on the people because the culturally the people were the same.

And ofcourse it was a Brahmin Kautilya who was running from pillar to post to form a united stand against the Alexander.

``Did Hindu rulers encourage violent religious persecutions?

These question is like how many Muslim rulers encourage tolerant religion practices?

Ofcourse its just a handful of them.

``It was this spectacular wealth and not the wealth of the land that attracted robbers like Mahmud of Ghazni``

If I am not wrong this guy invaded the northen parts of the Indian subcontinent 11 years in a row. So you mean to say that every time after being looted and gutted down, the poor hindus used to rebuild and enrich their temples so that the robber won`t go empty handed the next year.

``They even took control of the tomb of a Muslim saint, the Sai Baba at Shirdi in Maharashtra.``

Now this is highly ridiculous, how do you know that Saibaba was a Muslim saint. I have read extensively about the saint. Even his close acquantiances could not determine this secret and he never answered this question. He used to say ``Allah malik`` to the hindus and ``Ram Ram`` to the muslims just to create harmaony between them. Though he used to dress like a muslim fakir, his ears were pierced. He used to stay in a abandoned masjid which he used to call Dwarkamai. Even now people don`t know his faith at the time of his birth.

`` Did betrayal cause the success of Arab incursions?``

Its been said that after the conquest the Arabs killed the entire brahmin caste of sindh .THere are two theories 1. the brahmins were the only one who offered resistance ,2. the branmins colluded with the Arabs to win against the local king and hence the arabs didn`t trus them.

Whichever is true, today there is no Brahmin caste among the Sindhis.

``Why did the Rajputs fail to ward off the Islamic threat?``

Now you should look into various aspects here.

A Rajput is a very different type of a warrior. Even a British officer had pointed out that for a Rajput honour is more important than winning a war.For him the code of conduct like fighting till death, not fleeing the battleground and not attacking a fleeing enemy are more important than a war won by deceptive means.

Have you forgotten how Alauddin Khilji deceptively captured the Rana.

Also Islam had brought a very different kind of warfare to the subcintinent. The victor now not only killed the garrison but didn`t even spared the civilian populace.

Regarding the ``johars``, it was to prevent getting dishonoured by the victors. And this happened only if defeat was imminent. The johars of Chittor was done in face of certain defeat in the hands of powerful enemies.

``Many years later, Babur was to remark:

``The Indians know how to die better than how to fight.``

Do you now that he was the first person to get cannons in the Indian subcontinent. I would say he used technology to his advantage.

And as per your long detailed essay about the warfare, such things can be written about the fall of the Mughal empire at the hands of the British, the fall of the Marathas and Sikhs at the hands of the British, the fall of the Maginot line , the fall of the Pakistani defence forces in Bangladesh

Surely defeat is an orphan.

But one thing I would like to add is the failure of teh Rajputs was because of disunity. Prithviraj routed Ghauri at Tarrain with the help pf Jaisigh(if I am right) but the internice b/t them say that he was defeated in the next war.

But the same thing happened to the Marathas, the Siks

Hence I would say that the real failure was no unity against the external force.

``Many Jat tribes settled in north India who were suspicious of Brahmin priests, rites and sacrifices found the practical simplicity of Sikhism and its freedom from caste appealing and became its main followers.``

Give me a break. Why are you dragging this poor brahmin into this. It was a custom to donate a families first son to the cause of the Khalsa. Also majority of the jats are still Hindu by faith. Also Guru Gobind himself raised the Khalsa to protect the native Dharma form the uncultured foreign forces.

``No conversions can survive in any land without conversions of the hearts. Unconvinced converts will quickly revert to their inner faiths as soon as they are unsupervised. ``

Not if generations pass practising the forced religion.

Also, conversions were for monetary benefits, personal reasons like tansen converted simplify to marry a muslim. Also, converting to islam helped some to escape death.

And please don`t say that conversion was not forcible. look at the history Sambhaji, netaji palkar, even Guru Gobind Singhjis sons are all testimony to this.

``They were originally casteless animists and not Hindu. ``

For me any one native to this land is a Hindu. Because for me it is not a religion but a culture in itself.

``Although Islam was avowedly a religion of peace it changed over the 1400 years of its history. In the early years it was the most liberal religion offering equality to all men and giving women better rights than had ever been known before. ``

That will even put the prophet to same.

The prophet himself lead his followers to loot the wealth of passing caravans. Infact he has given rules how to share a loot. This Allahs banda has to kill his maliks creations to fill the pockets of his followers.

And don`t forget that Islam spread through the Sword.

`` On his own authority he rejected 99% of the 600,000 contributions he had received.

On what basis did he select that 1% ?

``Did Colonial Britain exploit India`s wealth?``

So the Bengal famine was whose legacy?

Bengal was the richest province when the British came and became the poorest during their departure.