Hidden Hindus

Reply Satyavadi #45 #46

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am bowled over by your wit and ability to bring some much needed sense to the discussion. u r too good... tell me, why do i have a feeling that i know you? ha ha ha.... even if u dont know me , i am very much interested in knowing you. i bet you will be a pleasure to talk to. what do you say?

i am always available in this forum. though not for the next 10 days. i am happy to go back home after so many days here as well as sad to leave the bongs here to come to terms with their second mother ``Baghirathi `` who is threatening to spoil their homage to their first mother ``kali``

and now for Krashid

Krashid #31:

``You are the real and true face of Hinduism.``

Sir, reading that mail of yours it is obvious that your opinion of satyavadi is not too high. but how can you make such a blatant statement about commenting on what the true face of Hinduism is. how much do you know about Hinduism except for the stereotyped feedback u get from your usual sources...

and when someone from this side of the border comments about Jinnah or Islam, we are bigoted, parochial, arrogant people who does not care to take an objective view of anything....

do you have the guts to learn? to face the truth? can you make an attempt to learn more about Hinduism to make a comment about it. believe me, it will be a really rewarding experience... or are you another of those guys we are finding dime a dozen on the either sides of border these days. who thrives on ignorance, hatred and narrowmindedness?

cheers,

awaiting ur reply, satyavadi,

jntuece99

Satyavadi#46: ``You are the real and true face of Hinduism.``

So I am ? Well, I dont know about this, but you should probably know now that I am not a Hindu.

Wouldja please stop going around bursting people`s bubbles? And what are doing with that pseudonym of yours anyway, that has definite Hindu religious significance for some people, thus affecting their already bruised sensibilities? Now, you wouldnt have caused such a misunderstanding if you chose a more liberal title, perhaps an Arabic or a Persian one. After all we do come from a constitutionally and socially secular country, you know...! We should disinherit our cultural and linguistic inheritance to prove we secular!

*yawn *

YLH and Satyavadi, I suggest you two go read Harish Nambiar`s poems.

Satyavadi

Do you also forget that Pakistan was also partitioned later on .. Bangladesh I believe has 15 % minority Hindu population.

Yasser

Jinnah`s bid to retire the two nation theory,

Jinnah`s speeches in the last year of his life, as the Governor General of Pakistan make it clear that he had espoused Pakistan to be free of the prejudices that had plagued Pre Partition India.

Two Nation Theory which had been the basis of Pakistan in its essence needed to be retired the day Pakistan was made. Jinnah`s speech of 11th August 1947 makes it clear. Just like Mr Gandhi had advocated the dissolution of Congress after Independence.. Jinnah had looked into the possibility of the dissolution of the Two Nation theory.

Whereas he hadnt dissolved the Muslim League but had left the option open for the creation of an organization that would represent all Pakistanis in the future. This he had made clear when proposals for a Pakistan League had started pouring in.

It is a fact today ... there are not 2 but 3 nations in the Subcontinent.... Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi ...

On the question of Islam being a deen and not Madhab ... and how it espouses a secular statehood ...

Here is Ms Sarwari`s article which she posted at the Siqafat Rutgers site. I hope you approve.

``Assalamlaikum!

I Hope my intrusion here is not offensive to anyone, I don`t go to Rutgers,but I feel strongly about the way Pakistanis and Muslims in general evolve in their thoughts about Islam and I thought it would be a good thing to add my 2 cents here :)

Now, I know the discussions here really get heated up, but from astrangers point of view, it really isn`t that bad, at least you guys have it in you to give truth a chance and listen out to another view different from ``established`` ones...something not that simple to do at this part of the continent. Three cheers for everyone who honored themselves, by saying what they felt!

Some food for thought here... thought you`d appreciate this [hope so]

A comparative study of religion or madhhab, and din, should help us

understand the vital and fundamental characteristics of each and the

differences between the two:

1. Madhhab is merely some sort of subjective experience and is

concerned only with the so-called private relationship between God and

man.

Din is an objective reality and a system of collective life.

2. Every follower of a madhhab is satisfied that he has established a

communion with the Almighty, and the objective of each individual is his

own salvation.

The aim of din on the other hand is the welfare and progress of all

mankind, and the character and constitution of a society indicates whether

or not it is founded upon the Divine Law.

3. Madhhab does not afford us any objective. criterion by which we could

determine whether or not our actions are producing the desired results.

In a social order governed by din, the development of a collective and

harmonious life correctly indicates whether or not the people are pursuing

the right course.

4. Madhhab is hostile to scientific investigation and is an adversary of

reason, so that it could flourish unhampered with the aid of a blind faith.

Din helps in the development of human reason and knowledge, allows full

freedom to accept or reject on the basis of reason and arguments, and

encourages investigation and discovery of all the natural phenomena to

illumine the path of human life and its advancement in the light of the

Permanent Values.

5. Madhhab follows the susceptibilities and prejudices of men and

pampers them.

Din seeks to lead men to a path of life that is in harmony with the realities

of life.

6. In every age, therefore, madhhab sets up new idols and mumbo-jumbos

in order to keep the people`s attention away from the real problems of life.

But din is rational and radical: it breaks all idols, old and new, and is

never variable in its principles.

7. Madhhab induces a perpetual sense of fear in the minds of men and

seeks to frighten them into conformity;

While din treats fear as a form of polytheism and seeks to make men

courageous, daring and self-reliant.

8. Madhhab prompts men to bow before every seat of authority and

prestige, religious as well as temporal.

Din encourages man to walk about with his head erect, and attain

self-confidence.

9. Madhhab induces man to flee from struggle of life.

But din calls upon him to face the realities of life squarely, whatever the

hazards.

10. Madhhab treats the world of matter with contempt and calls upon man

to renounce it. It promises paradise only in the Hereafter as a reward for

the renunciation of the material world.

Din, on the other hand, enjoins the conquest of matter and leads man to

immeasurable heights of attainment. It exhorts him to seek well-being and

happiness in this world as well as felicity in the life Hereafter.

11. Madhhab encourages belief in fatalism, and this tends to dissuade man

from active life and self-development.

Din gives man power to challenge fate, and provides energy for a life of

activity and self-development.

12. Madhhab seeks to comfort the weak, the helpless and the oppressed

with the belief that the affairs of this world are governed by the Will of

God and that its acceptance and resignation helps to endear them to God.

This sort of teaching naturally tends to morbidity, and emboldens their

religious leaders who profess to interpret the Will of God, so that they

indulge in their misdeeds with perfect impunity and persuade the

adherents to a complete and quiet submission.

Din, on the other hand, raises the banner of revolt against all forms of

tyranny and exploitation. It calls upon the weak and the oppressed to

follow the Divine Laws and thereby seek to establish a social order in

which all tyrants and oppressors will be forced to accept the dictates of

right and justice. In this social order, there is no place for dictators,

capitalists or priests. They are all enemies of din.

13. Madhhab enjoins religious meditation in the name of worship and thus

induces self-deception.

Din exhorts men to assert themselves and struggle perpetually for the

establishment of the Divine Social Order, and its betterment when

attained. Worship in din really means obedience to the Laws of God.

14. Madhhab frowns and sneers at all things of art and beauty.

Din defies those who forbid the enjoyment of the good and beautiful

things of life which God has created for the enjoyment of man.

15. Madhhab denounces everything new and declares all innovation as

sin.

Din holds that the needs and demands of human life keep changing with

the change in the conditions of life; change and innovation are, therefore,

demanded by life itself. Only the Divine Laws are immutable.

It should now be easy for us to see the fundamental difference between

din and madhhab. Islam means saying ``Yes`` to life; while the response of

religion is ``No``!

Thus Islam is an open challenge to religion as such

-Aisha Sarwari

jeunteuce99#

I have learned and learning about the true face of Hindu and Hinduism on this board.

Before coming on this board I had only Indian friends and I did not know, what hatred they would be carrying in their heart.

To tell you the truth, I had much better impression of India.

But now I know how to deal with you people.

I think it is enough for you for now.

ylh#50

To whom you are talking.

A Hindu started a lie that witness of non Muslim is half in Pakistani court or in Islam. From the next post it was not only presented as fact but they started maligning us for that.

We have an example for Indians on this board.

``Gobar mein Paddum``.

If you know what it means.

Satyavadi #46

Bhai Tu Bohat Bara, Uuncha aur Pohnvha Hua hai.

Ham Tere Qabil Nahin.

Tu Yahan Kia karna Aya Hai.

Hum Gharibon Ko Chor aur apne Mulk me airconditioned footpath pe bethe Hue logon Ko India Ki Azmat Bata. Unhe bhi abhi tak ye baat Nahi Pata.

Hum ko to teri Azmat Acchi Tarah Maloom Hai.

YLh #

Satyavadi wrote 8-10%

Can you tell me what you tell me what was the percentage of non-Muslims in United Pakistan even after massive migration.

sac

{{But there is a perceptible difference in outlook and demeanour. I`ve also noticed that these folks are generally better looking than the average Indian and the women they marry are from Maharashtra(and usually very pretty!!) and non-Sindhi. Is it just my experience or do Sindhis tend to marry outside the clan?}}

This is my personal belief that North Indians--esp Sindhis ,Punjabis & Kashmiris are better looking than most other Indians. I also feel that Pakistanis are overwhelmingly better looking than Indians.

Now before I start a mudslinging match, I just want to say that it is my personal opinion as far as looks are concerned. I dont want to offend anybody, after all beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Its like I feel whites in general are better looking than blacks. Please dont misunderstand me, I`m not being racist--its just my personal opinion, thats all.

Now to answer your question directly: No-In my personal experience within my Sindhi friends, they all married Sindhi girls (who are all very pretty, BTW). I have about 5 very good Sindhi friends. We spent 5& a 1/2 yrs in the hostel during medical school. I dont have any personal experience living in a US dorm, so I`m unable to make comparisons. But if you live with a bunch of guys in a hostel in medical college in India, you become closer to them than your own family. To this day, I`m ashamed to say, they are closer to me than my own 3 brothers.

Of course, all of them had several non Sindhi girlfriends--some of them very intense romances, but they all broke up by the time they were ready to be married. All dutifully married Sindhi girls, chosen by their parents.

I dont know how it is these days, but 20 odd years ago, in India, a doctor was a prize ``catch`` in the ``marriage market``. There was a standing joke. After they all graduated & became doctors, they would actually compare how many marriage offers they got that week! They would also compare notes!! Sentences like ``dont bother seeing her yaar, she has no tits or shes got a huge nose`` etc etc were commonplace then:)

All of us nonSindhis would tease them that their parents would demand 10 lakhs minimum for a dowry. Even though each & everyone of them piously stated that their parents would never stoop to take a dowry-- nobody believed them! Even today we rib their wives ``why in the world did your folks shell out all that money to have you marry this jerk!:)``

But I gotta hand it to them, they can take personal ribbing very well. In fact they are liable to crack ``Sindhi jokes`` more than others. For eg, 2 of my Sindhi friends are prominent cardiologists in Chicago. On top of that they have made an obscene amount of money on the US stock market. One guy builds a $5 milion house in the poshest Chicago suburb. The other guy will turn around & build a $6 million house , just 2 blocks from him. I was ribbing them for this stupid one-upmanship . They both shrugged their shoulders & said ``kya karega yaar, aakhir Sindhi hain na?!``

Satyavadi

Excellent posts!

Shandana Minhas

Nice article. As others have pointed out, the detailed forays into Hindu ritual and festival do make the article seem somewhat disjointed, but I realize that it was written for a Pakistani audience, which, unlike the people in the rest of the subcontinent, are quite ignorant about a religion that has had a tremendous influence on their own culture!

I think that this is the greatest tragedy of Partition – that whole generations of Pakistanis have been cut off from the rich cultural heritage of the Indian subcontinent. The diversity of India forces her citizens, whether they by Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Parsi, Sikh, etc. to know one another and about each others faiths and how they have influenced the composite Indian (subcontinent) culture we all share. But that tragedy of history is being made up for through remarkable forums like chowk.

Aisha

Most reasonable people agree that neither Pakistan nor India is perfect, but when it comes to the status of minorities, India is definitely ahead and here is why.: India tries. From the start, India has always made it the goal that, to paraphrase Jinnah, ‘ones religion has nothing to do with the business of the state.’ Based on your posts, I don’t think even you and a fellow Pakistani like YLH will agree on the proper legal role of religion in Pakistan. So when your people declared a religious state in 1947, what are people to expect about the status of minorities in your country? Of course minorities will be discriminated against. With religious states like yours, this is as certain as death and taxes.

I think the fact that Pakistan’s minority population went from a number approaching 50% (at least in the major cities) before Partition to the current levels of 5-2% (?) while India has always had a diverse peoples speaks volumes about the different types of societies these two countries strive for.

Madam, your country is a land of hate.

Mc Gupta # 29

I was of the same thought as you.

But after seeing enough of you people, I think Syed is right.

Harish

First of all, we never declared ourselves a religious state... this is just a misconception. Jinnah`s statement on this is very clear.

``You are free, you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion caste or creed- that has nothing to do with the business of the state.``

11th August 1947- Constituent Assembley address.

I have requested your people to please read before you utter such fantastic nonsense.

I believe that my friend Prem Bodagala, an Indian, had a very nice time in Pakistan this summer. He wouldnt agree with your qualification of Pakistan as a land of hate and he is a stronger Indian Nationalist than anyone here!!!!!

Let us try to be objective,

Shandana,

a well written article.

we all talk of muslims being discriminated in india and hindus being discriminated in pakistan due to their religions. infact a lot of things in our countries happen or have happened due to religion....the partition of india, the babri masjid demolition in india, the blasphamy law in pakistan, riots etc etc.

now think of a world without religion. at least i personally donot believe in any religion and frankly that has made me a much better person, much more tolerant and patient. religion is essentially a way of life. but thanks to some great people in our countries, religion has been turned into a reason for fight, quarrel and discrimination.

it may see a bit hard to digest initially, but think about it!!!

ylh reply # 48

``WHy do I even bother with your kind. I guess it is because of Prem and his family that I have any respect for Indians ... otherwise there wouldnt be any.``

thanx to people like u, i`m loosing the respect i had for pakistanis.

take care,

devkant.

Harish and others

Please atleast consult some books before you check the figures. Had the Punjab and Bengal given to us entirely, we would still have only 32 to 35 % minorities but they werent given to us entirely.

Then Bangladesh went its own way .. taking away a chunk of our minorities..... so the present day percentage of minorities is only based on facts.

Interestingly enough Satyavadi quoted out of Hamza Alavi when Hamza Alavi had spoken about the original Pakistan plan. The Satyavadi comes up with some weird justification which doesnot make sense... and finally he forgets that Bangladesh went its own seperate way ...

That is how Pakistan only has 3% minorities...

Next time use your head ... though I doubt that there is something worthwhile in there knowing the kind you belong to!