The Meaning of Pakistan

Ref ROmair,

``In essence, the economic progress, due to its one-sidedness, actually assisted in the breakup of the country. Is India headed along similar lines?``

are you going to deny there isnt the slightest bit of wishful thinking in the above comment?

harimau,

:O)

sorry, your name just came in handy, it was late at night and i wasn`t thinking too rationally. i do apologize.

more later to others...

ahmadb #168

As a social scientist (of the highest order!) you realize that there is a multitude of factors that lead to Indian Muslims lagging behind. As you pointed out, some are historical, others relate to current socio-economic structures. There continues to be discrimination against muslims, though it is not as widespread and deep as some may think or even the article seems to suggest. The problem I think is that the community as a whole has failed to capitalize on whatever meagre opportunities most Indians have, and unlike in the case of Dalits, other Indians have not gone out of their way to help them. This also gets muslims into a vicious tangle with the likes of Shiva Sena as they feed off each other`s fears and prejudices. That dissipates a great of energy that the community could otherwise utilize in the pursuit of modernity and economic well-being.

The issue we need to concentrate on: what practical steps should both the Indian government and leaders of the muslim community in India take to get Indian muslims moving along with all other communities?

Umairr #various

So I should think back on my friends, classmates and colleagues and classify them by religion and parade them here as statistics? That too, for a Pakistani in whom such a discrimination has been fostered as a virtue by the state since childhood? NO WAY!

Find some other way to feel good about yourself, for example compare Pakistanis to their Afghan, Persian and Arabic coreligionists. I hear the civilizational and genetic linkages to those communities are a lot stronger than anything to the east.

concerned #152
Where higher education and tech. is concerned, well, some Hindu communities primarily engaged in business have a very poor showing too, because children are married off soon after a basic degree and get into learning the ropes of business without any delay..

Everyone makes the mistake on focussing only on urban communities where the number of Muslims are large enough and administration/facilities dispersed enough that there is less discrimination.

This is not true in rural or semi-rural areas, where numbers are small and local administration and facilities are in the hands of a few. The very valid questions you raise would be moot in such areas, including other questions such as in communal riots who gets arrested more often, who doesnot face bias in getting an electricity connection, buying land, paying hafta to operate a business, etc etc. I think Muslims, suffer like other comminities who are locally in minority, and due to other factors, including history and lacking an effective larger power structure, they may suffer much worse. The same milligazette.com Faruk #161 refers to, documents some cases and mentions the results of some studies done on this subject. You might like to look particularly at one report about Azamgrah, UP.

Though all communities in majority-situations behave the same way, I suspect. I heard froma relative about her town in Western UP where the electricity and water outages are relaxed not on Diwali or Holi ONLY on Eid :).

btw, where does even the Pakistani press report on what goes on in Pakistani villages and mofussil towns. In this respect, both the Indian AND the Pakistani press seem to be very elitist.

krashid #162

Good for you. How else would you be able to abuse an Indian for the posts of another poster who obviously lacks a spine or abuse an Indian for the words of some half-crazed Baluchis compatriots or the rantings of a delusional Khalifa-in-waiting. If you were an Indian, you would have to take responsibility for all that. That was a very good decision to migrate.


Sadhana

btw, has anyone noticed the interesting inconsistency, here? Umairr and sarwari donot talk to each other, so how can you even begin to describe the pathetic situation with Muslims in a 80% Hindu country when Hindus are responsible for all the evils in the MAJORITY Muslim countries, particularly 97%??

`chith bhi meri pat bhi meri` kab tak chalegaa??

krashid,

[...what was the point...]

i do not cosider those people indian who either keep the flags of pakistan in their houses, or greet the pakistanis as `aap to hamaray mulk se aaye hain`, or celebrate pakistani cricket victory over india. to extend it further, i do not consider the people who feel that they belong to an `ummah` and not to india, as indian either.

these people would never get the sympathy of any indian, whether he is hindu, muslim, sikh, or of any other shade.

faruk,

[...the strata of muslim society that the author is talking about are poor, illiterate and used...]

true, but even if we consider the `poor` muslim population to reflect the overall average (30%, it may be more), it would indicate that 40 million or more muslims could fall in this category. i find that a scary number that can potentially be `used` for a `non-indian` identity. i hope my fear is exaggerated.

bahmad,

[...is it because they are paying the price for the creation of pakistan? or, what? could you please explain?...]

no, i can not. can you explain why muslim leaders would meet vajpayee and demand an enquiry into koran burning but would never raise any concerns about the lack (real or imaginary) of educational opportunities for muslims?

you had very detailed discussions with syjam (a muslim from india) over an year ago on these topics. if you are not convinced by his (her?) explanations, what chance do i have?

In response to Eklavya (Reply # 181)
Dear Eklavya:

Thanks for a sensible response. The Indian Muslims need to work on a number of fronts, which includes greater interaction within the Indian civil society. I wonder if you are aware of Gayatri Spivak and her piece: Can the Subaltern Speak?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Well said Scout, ``We underestimate the power of self esteem for progression. It would be an interesting study comparing the attitudes and personalities of Indian Muslims vs. Pakistani Muslims.``

Mr. Anil,

Everytime I read what you wrote about the zero sum game I understand a lot more things than I knew before. YLH sugessted it would be a good idea to save it somewhere for future refrence. Thank you so much :)

Chowkwalas should enjoy picking this apart.

HINDU MUSLAMAN BYE BYE!

Part 1

Now that I have your attention, lets discuss the culture of persuasion that we in South Asia, home to nearly half of humanity, have failed to understand. The Hindu Musalman clash is due to the tension between two different ideological systems. No one can deny that Indian thought has had perhaps the greatest space and opportunity in time to evolve. What we can deny however is that it has not evolved in the right direction, after all sometimes things become extinct. On the other hand it’s not too cumbersome to project life into Pakistani philosophy, it conjures up the mind of consciousness and roots its reason in logic, much like the western perceptions. Yet the west invariably tends toward infinite thought of Hinduism, the symbolic rite, the inexplicable calmness and the meditative idle time is all too tempting for those who are at crossroads of morality. Choosing the lesser path presents the best illusion, intoxicating the amputated soul, giving it just what it needs. Sips of spiritual bliss, a mirage cum oasis that only time can determine by its gentle touch. But what are we supposed to do with these thoughtless creatures in the meantime? We after all have to live under the same sun. We share somewhat similar interests and our masses too could be effectively isolated form the rational bounds. Kashmir: our greatest collective consciousness and their greatest ego matter…when will it all come to an end?

Before we venture into discovering the differences in inner dialogue of Musalmans and Hindus its imperative we see the end first. The day the dawn when we can learn to co-exist in peace is a must see for anyone who wants to make the world a better place. The day the dawn when Pakistanis can share without feeling overwhelmed by numerals and recessive by dominance of power. The day the dawn when there is no status struggle but a subtle let-live attitude. I do not wish to forget the flowers at my feet as I dream for the stars because I know that Hindus will perhaps never respect the living testament that Pakistanis are happy to be Pakistanis and the simple observation that we ARE, is quiet a task for them Therefore I have not mentioned “respect”, I have simply dreamed for a the Day the dawn when we can let morality guide our actions instead of self-interest. This morality is simple, its unambiguous it is not contradictory and it is not antagonist to another interest party. If we can only figure out who determines the morality of choices available, we can solve half the problem, and so this is what the rest of my words will attempt to figure out. Weather Hindu thought ever factors in at all in determining our “bhai-bhai-batwara” of the shared items.

I am making two obvious assumptions: that all Hindus think alike and conversely that all Pakistanis think, and second that you will be able to pick out the bias in this write-up and understand the rationality behind it. You owe Pakistanis like me the latter favor because we have respect for your religion and we have practiced your ancient yoga and its various branches, and that we have read Deepak Choopra and that we have watched Mahabharat and that we have our families split right through the center between Indians and Pakistanis and we make our conclusions keeping the abovementioned data in our mind. After all, I am making this argument on the same line that Gandhi leaned on when he claimed Muslim political rights should be insured in united India because he has read the Quran.6

A third not so obvious conclusion is that the concept of communalism deals with sectarian devotion to either Hinduism or Islam. Although from the 1940’s in South Asia it quite clearly included the two distinct groups, but Mr. Nehru, plagued by the Indian thought concluded that the minorities of India hide behind the banner of religious community but are essentially concerned with Political patronage.1

The first deficiency in Indian nourishment of thought is the inability to consider all facts. Context only applies to the visions of the Indian laying down the opinion. Mr. Jawaharlal missed out the reason to why a minority in India would feel the need to hang on to a “narrow” based communalism, if at all they did. Narrow: pushed against the wall by Hindus. In order to comprehend the simultaneous divergence of thoughts in these two groups, there would be no better study than that of the pre-partition scenario. Therein we can seek to find out weather the Indian claim that was prevalent then and even today stood any ground. The conclusion that the partition was the product of vested interests on the part of Muslim leaders, especially Jinnah, is the offspring of the thought that there was tranquility between Hindus and Musalmans in the pre-partition time. The entire family of thought is flawed.

When independence from Britain was imminent, the crusade for independence was alongside the Muslim India’s desire to create a state free of Hindu domination. Note that the following things were food for the sacred desire of Muslims.

· Arya Samaj and Mahasabha shouting provocative slogans creating intense bitterness among the Muslims 2

· Attempt to use Hindi as nation unifier.

· Congress Flag and Anthem that were an emblem of Hindu symbols despite the claim that Congress is a secular body encompassing the proper representation of Muslims.

· Education policies requiring school children to pay homage to Ghandi’s portrait.3

· Although Gandhi’s claim of the British perusing a policy of divide and rule being the CAUSE of communal tensions can be defended, it is impossible to defend the fact that British policy did indeed FURTHER the communal division that existed long before. Reforms that facilitated Muslim down-play such as the India Act of 1935 proved that the British Legislative policy, while ostensibly aimed at protecting minority rights, tended to accentuate sectarian allegiances.4

· The failure of Congress to acknowledge the League’s various concerns or its existence was perhaps the prime cause of Pakistan’s creation.7

These are a few of the many pus-ridden grievances by Muslims, regarding the friction stemming from the various powerful and all-encompassing invasions from Arabs around the 7th century. Indian leaders and masses chose to adhere to a view quiet contradictory to the truth, perhaps because Indian thought does not value truth at all. Truth is quiet relative to them. Should I dare generalize further and classify the Hindu thought as the Orient and the Muslim or western mind as Occident, we would arrive at the following differences.

· The Quran and most Islamic teaching aim to conquer the forces of nature. In fact Dr. Abdul Wadood’s conclusion after analyzing the parallel between the Quran and Science is that forces of nature is what the Quran means with reference to angels. Whereas the Hindu mind seeks harmony with nature.

· There is great value placed on cold logic (natural law) and efficiency in the mind of Muslim India. Propriety, ritual, form and the dragging in of religious philosophies such as satyagraha and ahimsa are very central in making a movement for the Hindus.

· The orient is structured on collectivism focusing greatly on one’s tribe, clan and caste, while the occident places more value on maximizing personal performance and on individualism.

· There is more of an Aristotelian approach that pleases the occident: an either-or attitude and things are absolute measured by a specific yardstick of right and wrong. Easterners generally seem to be able to believe that something can be good and bad, right and wrong or black and white.5

· The Hindu mind is mystical and meditative and the Muslim adventurous and aggressive.5

· Muslims have a very progressive concept of the straight and inclined path to God (Siratul-Mustaqeem), whereas the Hindu has this circular concept of life, where one eventually ends up where one begins, recycling and reincarnating.

There has always been an attempt by Hindus and ignorant Muslims successfully blinded by Hindu thought that there was little significantly problematic between Hindu Muslim interaction. If there was any awareness they pretended so well, perhaps even they couldn’t tell the difference. It was conveniently ignored:-

· That Hindu Muslim unity was a necessary prerequisite for the struggle of Indipendence.8

· That persistent advocacy for minority rights in a constitutional manner is a viable option since it’s not only a right of the minority but a duty of the Hindus.

· That non-cooperation and civil disobedience would produce chaos, as history thereafter proves vindication of.

· That Hindus and Muslims are two major nations within the subcontinent. Ironically when Gandhi was asked what is the thing that “leads us to do what we do”, answered, “purely religious!…” 9

· That “reconstituting existing provinces into homogeneous independent zones” was more feasible than appealing to emotions by use of terms such as, “vivisection of India” and “cutting the baby into two halves” 10

· That nationality is not retained when one changes faith in the subcontinent then because a convert was branded a “malechha” or untouchable and successfully isolated in all spheres of life by Hindus.

· That the conversion occurred many thousands of years ago, and hence presented sufficient time for the proliferation of divided cultural embedding, weakening the argument that implied the somewhat recent conversion causes the retaining of similarity between the two faiths.

· That there is a great contrast between Urdu’s Arabic roots and Hindi’s Sanskrit origin.

· That though Muslims may sometimes have Hindu surnames, their first names clearly evidence of two distinct nations.

· That “…there was no sympathetic understanding of each other’s religion and culture, no give and take in a real sense, and no renaissance. Whatever mutual impact there was during the centuries of contact of the two civilizations was due to the accident of their living together in the same land rather than to any enthusiasm on their part to learn from each other for their mutual benefit.” 11

· The Pakistan proposal, when there was clear understanding of what it meant.

There is little one can do when arguing with a group who claims to be guided by “inner voices”. There is a natural propelling force that causes the other to turn to more desperate measures. Hindus are a very wise lot though. They have to be given credit for picking on the most disorganized of all, the Muslims; the ones who find it impossible to agree on any given issue. I find it similar to the Kansas Evolution debate a few months ago in the US. The Scientists were left speechless in a debate with the Creationists who based their argument on a Divine undisputed scripture.

The slippery slope fallacy was a lubricant for Hindu fears. The fear reigned over the rationality of having a separate homeland for the “two major communities”. Gandhi aptly projected the Hindu paranoia, when he said. “The consequences of accepting such a preposition are dangerous in the extreme. Once the principle is admitted, there would be no limit to claims for cutting up India into numerous divisions which would spell Indian’s ruin.”12

Isn’t it ironic that the abovementioned self-preservation strategy that Hindus perused back then to deny the Muslims the right of self-determination as a nation but considered them a territorial unit, is the same self-preservation strategy that is perused today to count Kashmir’s right of self-determination as a nation instead of considering them as a territorial unit?

Truth is that Hindus use the banner of democracy and secularism as a tool for paving the path to securing Hindu interests, and Muslims fight to secure Muslim interests based on the guarantees and trust of the fair play of the other party’s governance. Its what has fooled us for ages now and yet we continue to be fooled. The victim is a greater sinner than the oppressor and the unjust one. So instead of complaining no one appreciates our colors and hues, simply stop being a doormat for the Hindus, recognize their minds, and do what needs to be done…NOW!

Works Cited:

1. Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India (New York: John Day, 1946), p. 386.

2. G. Allana (ed.), Pakistan Movement, pp. 165-66

3. B. R. Nanda, Mahatma Gandhi; A Biography (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1958), p. 409

4. Allen Hayes, Gandhi vs. Jinnah (Columbia: T.K Mukherjee, 1980), p. 14

5. Ibid., p.21

6. G. Allana (ed.), Pakistan Movement, p. 181

7. Penderel Moon, Divide and Quit (Berkley: University of California Press, 1962), p. 15.

8. Khalid B. Sayeed, “The Personality of Jinnah and His Political Strategy, “The Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives, 1935-1947, ed. Cyril Henry Philips And Mary Doreen Wainwright (London: Allen and Unwin,1970), p. 277.

9. The full text of Gandhi’s letter, article and Jinnah’s reply can be found in M.K Gandhi, Communal University, pp. 214-15.

10. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Some Recent Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah, ed. Jamil-ud-din Ahmad (Lahore: Sk.Muhammad Ashraf, 1946), p. 189.

11. Srivastava, Medieval Indian Culture, p.256.

12. M. K. Gandhi, To The Protagonists of Pakistan, p. 121.

Indian Muslims: Babar or Ram?

Francois Gautier

INDIAN Muslims are today at the crossroads. The destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan has shown that Islam still considers Buddhist and Hindu statues, temples and worshippers as infidels, to be razed and eliminated. For the Taliban and those who support them, covertly or overtly, nothing has changed since Mohammed broke the first `idols` in the 7th century and the task has been left unfinished. The suicide attacks on the Indian army by Islamic groups, supported and financed by Pakistan, in spite of India`s unilateral ceasefire, should also prove that the Islamic injunction of jehad is still very much alive and in practice in much of the Islamic world, from Sudan to Libya, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan.

The question that Indian Muslims should ask themselves now is simple: who are we? Among the 120 millions of Muslims in India, only a tiny percentage descends from the Turks, Afghans, or Iranians who invaded India. The majority of them are converted Muslims. And converted how? By terror, coercion, force, bloodshed. The ancestors of today`s Indian Muslims are probably those who suffered the most from the Arab and Muslim invasions. Those Hindus and Sikhs who chose not to convert, took refuge in their faith, fought together and kept their pride and honor. The first two generations of those who converted must have endured hell for they certainly did not convert out of conviction, but because they had no choice: their daughters and wives were raped, sons taken into slavery, parents killed.

It is true that many Indian Muslims were Hindu `untouchables`. Marxists wouldlike us to believe that they converted because they thought that theywould access the more egalitarian society of Islam. What rubbish! Does onethink in that way in times of war, terror and tears? Do today`s Hindu lower castes convert to Islam when there is no violent coercion? Morelikely, the `untouchables` were the most vulnerable, the least apt to defend themselves; they had neither the faith of the brahmins, nor the riches of the vaishyas, nor the military skill of the kshatriyas.

Do Indian Muslims understand that they were part of the richest, most advanced, most tolerant and generous civilization of ancient times? That their culture was so advanced that it had spread all over the world? Do they realise that more and more archaeological and historical discoveries are pointing out that the genocide of Hindus by Muslim invaders is without parallel. The conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the entire Hindu population there; indeed, the region is still called Hindu Kush _ `Hindu slaughter`. The Bahmani sultans in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 Hindus a year. In 1399, Taimur killed 100,000 Hindus in a single day. Professor K.S. Lal has estimated that the Hindu population decreased by 8O million between the year 1000 and 1525, probably the biggest holocaust in history. Surely, many of present-day Indian Muslims` ancestors must have been among those slaughterers.Islam cannot be wished away. As Sri Aurobindo said, ``Mohammed`s mission was necessary, else we might have ended by thinking, in the exaggeration of our efforts at self-purification, that earth was meant only for the monk and the city created as a vestibule for the desert``. Thus Indian Muslims have to keep their faith and any attempt by Hindus to convert them back is not only futile but counterproductive. But the question to be asked to them is: What kind of Islam do you want to practice? An Islam which looks westwards, towards a foreign city, the Mecca, swears by a scripture, which is not only not relevant to India but which was meant for people living 1,500 years ago, in a language which is not Indian? Or do they want to practise an Islam which is `Indianised`, which accepts the reality of other gods, as Hinduism and Buddhism accept that there have been other avatars than Ram or Buddha?

Do Indian Muslims want to worship Babar, a man who destroyed everything which was good, beautiful and holy and lived by the power of violence, or do they want to imbibe the qualities of Ram, who believed in the equality of all, who gave up all riches and honours of the world because he thought his brother deserved the throne more than him? Whatever the West says, which is obsessed with China, India, a vibrant, English-speaking, pro-Western democracy, is going to become the superpower of the 21st century. Do Indian Muslims want to participate in that great adventure? Do they want to feel that they are part of India, that they are Indians?

Nowadays it is politically not correct to say anything against Islam. Youare immediately labelled anti-Muslim and dismissed as a `rightist`. No matter if you are only reporting the fact that there is a real problem with Islam in South Asia; that India is surrounded by fundamentalist states _ Afghanistan and Pakistan _ while more moderates like Bangladesh tend to close an eye to anti-Indian activities; that Indian Muslims sometimes tend to put their religion before their country. Thus the question has to be asked again: Do Indian Muslims want to be like Babar or like Ram? Their choice will shape their future for generations to come

http://www.newindpress.com/ColumnItems.asp?id=IE620010313021657&eTitle=Features+%2D+Columns&rLink=0&writer=Francois+Gautier

RE: spout

``I wouldn`t have had the same opportunities ``

Yeah, if you hadn`t come to the West whose most basic ideals you denounce while shamelessly eating its fruits. We all know what kinds of opportunities there are in Pakistan for women.

Harish3 Pakistan was created because the Muslims of India honestly felt that they could not get a fair deal in a United India, now are you suggesting that since Muslims of India could not find a fair deal in the United India, they should make a state where other minorities cant find a fair deal either? I believe that the fact Pakistan discriminates against Non Muslims is a contradiction of the purpose it was made for !

Kindly read Anil`s reply #63

I am reposting it here

Repost of Anil`s reply

[Dear Aisha:

Welcome back to sunny California. I have a few questions you.

a. Why highly intellectual and high energy people like yourselves are still searching for a meaning of Pakistan? It will evolve like every thing just give its democratic institutions (however corrupt) back. In this context, how would you explain the U.S. constitution / bill of rights and the U.S. Supreme Court at one time upheld slavery, and the same constitution and bill rights outlawed it too. These contradictions can only be explained if you accept evolutionary nature of human societies requires evolutionary changes in interpretations and institutions. Develop these institutions, begin with girls and empower women, you will see changes coming in two generations, your grand children will feel these changes. It is a slow process, Musharraff is misleading the people just as much as people blame Nawaz Shariff

b. Why can Pakistan be accepted as a ground reality and let your / YLH generation make it a better (in evolutionary) way? Would you compare your baby with your neighbor`s and fight for its acceptance or just accept it and don`t care for those neighbors who would not accept your baby. Your baby v Neighbor`s baby is not a zero-sum game. Your love is the differentiator which the neighbor`s baby does not have.

c. Would it not be better for people like yourselves and YLH to eliminate zero-game tendencies from your thinking process, and instead evolve some of your social thoughts into synthesis of political and religious models that Pakistan needs for more important economic development. You and YLH would have atleast one avid reader in me, to read you and YLH on such interesting subject. I promise both of you would be able to develop your thoughts without zero-sum game.

c. Why do you let yourself be dragged into zero-sum game Hindu-Muslim and India-Pakistan?

d. Why do you let yourself indulge into Jinnah-Gandhi zero-sum game? Jinnah would rightly stand on his on feet whether Pakistan and more importantly South Asia timely rediscovers him. He will be rediscovered for the liberal democrat and a genuine leader that he was, and less for his Hindu-Muslim unity. No unity is imposed, its need is felt and only then the unity happens. South Asia will benefit if it can go through Western Europe like process to feeling the need for unity, and needing it too.

Likewise, NON_ONION eating Gandhi, whether you like it or not has stood on his own feet and will continue to stand on his feet. Even BJP leaders who after gaining the power realized on their trip to the western capital how important and relevant Gandhi is, they quitely distanced themselves from the killers of Gandhi in their own party and embraced Gandhi at least while in the West. Like it or not Gandhi did become acknowledged inspiration for people like Martin Luther King etc. It is unfortunate that Jinnah had been buried in this zero-sum game nonsense. You know what the video rental place near my home in Saratoga, CA is run by a very nice Pakistani family, I several times over the last one year, went there to rent Jinnah movie, each time I have been told that there is no video yet. It is also unfortunate that Musharraff fires from the ambassodorship to the U.K., the person who made it a personal mission to deliver Jinnah message. Non of this has anything to with India-Pakistan, Hindu-Muslim and Gandhi-Jinnah zero sum game.

e. Don`t you think the loosers in Pakistani leadership go for Jinnah-Gandhi zero sum game to justify their parasitic existance?

There are far too many important qualities that both had than to wastefully compare Jinnah`s leadership and his liberal democratic value system with Gandhi`s NON_ONION eating habit; or for that matter Jinnah`s alchol consumption and pork eating with Gandhi`s virtuous use of non-violence as a weapon. It is foolish, it childish and completely misses the mark.

f. Why cannot we just accept that they both played their parts extremely well given the hands they were dealt with and the life and time they lived?

Let us not measure them with the present generation`s yardstick. It is my humble opinion that if they were given the freer hands and could have exercised greater control, the South Asia would have been far better off, today. And like it or not TNT would never have happened, by this I NEVER imply that Muslims would have lost power, it is a subject in itself.

TNT was a master counter move by Jinnah. Unfortunately, he did not realize that another liberal democrat, Nehru would force the move to Nehru`s advanatge. Sometimes, I wonder if Nehru did not have the ambition to be the Prime Minister what would have happened to TNT, and if he had given Gandhi a free hand to offer in all sincerity to Jinnah, then what would have happened to South Asia.

ANIL KAPURIA]

Pakistan Zindabad

Sincerely

YLH

The tolerance and beauty of Islam.........

http://www.newindpress.com/ColumnItems.asp?id=IE620010313021657&eTitle=Features+%2D+Columns&rLink=0&writer=Francois+Gautier

Indian Muslims: Babar or Ram?

Francois Gautier

INDIAN Muslims are today at the crossroads. The destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan has shown that Islam still considers Buddhist and Hindu statues, temples and worshippers as infidels, to be razed and eliminated. For the Taliban and those who support them, covertly or overtly, nothing has changed since Mohammed broke the first `idols` in the 7th century and the task has been left unfinished. The suicide attacks on the Indian army by Islamic groups, supported and financed by Pakistan, in spite of India`s unilateral ceasefire, should also prove that the Islamic injunction of jehad is still very much alive and in practice in much of the Islamic world, from Sudan to Libya, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan.

The question that Indian Muslims should ask themselves now is simple: who are we? Among the 120 millions of Muslims in India, only a tiny percentage descends from the Turks, Afghans, or Iranians who invaded India. The majority of them are converted Muslims. And converted how? By terror, coercion, force, bloodshed. The ancestors of today`s Indian Muslims are probably those who suffered the most from the Arab and Muslim invasions. Those Hindus and Sikhs who chose not to convert, took refuge in their faith, fought together and kept their pride and honor. The first two generations of those who converted must have endured hell for they certainly did not convert out of conviction, but because they had no choice: their daughters and wives were raped, sons taken into slavery, parents killed.

It is true that many Indian Muslims were Hindu `untouchables`. Marxists wouldlike us to believe that they converted because they thought that theywould access the more egalitarian society of Islam. What rubbish! Does onethink in that way in times of war, terror and tears? Do today`s Hindu lower castes convert to Islam when there is no violent coercion? Morelikely, the `untouchables` were the most vulnerable, the least apt to defend themselves; they had neither the faith of the brahmins, nor the riches of the vaishyas, nor the military skill of the kshatriyas.

Do Indian Muslims understand that they were part of the richest, most advanced, most tolerant and generous civilization of ancient times? That their culture was so advanced that it had spread all over the world? Do they realise that more and more archaeological and historical discoveries are pointing out that the genocide of Hindus by Muslim invaders is without parallel. The conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the entire Hindu population there; indeed, the region is still called Hindu Kush _ `Hindu slaughter`. The Bahmani sultans in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 Hindus a year. In 1399, Taimur killed 100,000 Hindus in a single day. Professor K.S. Lal has estimated that the Hindu population decreased by 8O million between the year 1000 and 1525, probably the biggest holocaust in history. Surely, many of present-day Indian Muslims` ancestors must have been among those slaughterers.Islam cannot be wished away. As Sri Aurobindo said, ``Mohammed`s mission was necessary, else we might have ended by thinking, in the exaggeration of our efforts at self-purification, that earth was meant only for the monk and the city created as a vestibule for the desert``. Thus Indian Muslims have to keep their faith and any attempt by Hindus to convert them back is not only futile but counterproductive. But the question to be asked to them is: What kind of Islam do you want to practice? An Islam which looks westwards, towards a foreign city, the Mecca, swears by a scripture, which is not only not relevant to India but which was meant for people living 1,500 years ago, in a language which is not Indian? Or do they want to practise an Islam which is `Indianised`, which accepts the reality of other gods, as Hinduism and Buddhism accept that there have been other avatars than Ram or Buddha?

Do Indian Muslims want to worship Babar, a man who destroyed everything which was good, beautiful and holy and lived by the power of violence, or do they want to imbibe the qualities of Ram, who believed in the equality of all, who gave up all riches and honours of the world because he thought his brother deserved the throne more than him? Whatever the West says, which is obsessed with China, India, a vibrant, English-speaking, pro-Western democracy, is going to become the superpower of the 21st century. Do Indian Muslims want to participate in that great adventure? Do they want to feel that they are part of India, that they are Indians?

Nowadays it is politically not correct to say anything against Islam. Youare immediately labelled anti-Muslim and dismissed as a `rightist`. No matter if you are only reporting the fact that there is a real problem with Islam in South Asia; that India is surrounded by fundamentalist states _ Afghanistan and Pakistan _ while more moderates like Bangladesh tend to close an eye to anti-Indian activities; that Indian Muslims sometimes tend to put their religion before their country. Thus the question has to be asked again: Do Indian Muslims want to be like Babar or like Ram? Their choice will shape their future for generations to come.

re. scout #178

``Had it not been for Pakistan and my parents families moving West during the partition, I wouldn`t have had the same opportunities or confidence that I have now.``

Are we to assume that the percentage of Indian Muslims of your parents` background who have been able to provide the same opportunties for their kids is lower than for Pakistani Muslims? It`s an interesting question. But I don`t know the answer. Do you?

``In post partition Pakistan, my parents developed their identity, self esteem, and confidence, passing it on to their children. Patriotism is an elixer for success, if used correctly.``

Well, I am happy for you. But patriotism as an elixir for success? Then you`d have to consider the jihadi Paksitanis the most successful. I`m sure THEY do. What does it matter, when a majority of the population is still below the poverty line?

rgds,

Indian Muslim International Student

controversey ....

I just wanted to remind everyone here that I

was the first one to bring that point up, on the

first Aisha Article in June of Last year!

-Yasser Hamdani

Re: education of muslims in India.

Reply #: 176

egalitarian_brahmin

``Hindus were overwhelmingly better represented, not just by numbers, but by proportion, in India`s educated bourgeoisie compared to Muslims``.

While your above statement may be true, it only goes to show the present system of education in India has not succeeded in bringing a significant section of minorities (muslims) into the mainstream educational system. That most muslims (except some rich ones)do not send their children to schools where the hindus are in large numbers but prefer to send them to madrasas is well known. This only goes to show that a democratic India has unfortunately failed to remove a ``fear complex`` from the minds of the muslims. This fear is the fear of being totally taken over - culturally, and in every other way possible- by the majority community. So the muslims have silently boycotted all these bodies and institutions where they would come in contact with the hindus in large numbers. This fear is not fact-founded and reason-grounded but it is hard to convince the muslims. So they continue to send their children to madrasaas where these children learn Urdu, Koran (nothing wrong with that) but are not taught modern subjects (science,computers etc, which is definitely wrong).

I would like to imagine that hindus,when they were ruled by the Mughals and other muslim rulers, suffered from a similar ``fear complex``. During these times, they became a closed community,zealoulsy guarding their culture and values. Caste system also i believe became more rigid during these times,and in an attempt to discourage conversions to Islam,severely punished the transgressers.

What is the solution then? In a democracy all sections of the society should feel they are being given a fair deal. While we see muslims are well represented in art,music,cinema etc. why are they not well represented in academic fields? What can be done to reassure them that they are not going to be swept away by hindus if they join their schools. One way would be to introduce Urdu as an optional subject and not force hindi on the muslims (in USA,with a 3 to 5% hispanic population,Spanish is an optional subject in all schools; why not urdu in India,with more than 10% muslim population?). This may only be a first step. Ultimately,once reassured that the law is fair and they have nothing to fear, i think they will shed this fear complex and join the mainstream.

I believe,Indian muslims ``joining the mainstream`` will be the best thing that can happen to India,as this will create a middle class that can become the sane voice of this entire community (instead of the leadership being forced on this community by the likes of Shahabuddin and Shahi Imam of Delhi).

sridhar.

Harish3

One last thing, that is if my last post was in

anyway unclear... as Jinnah tried, and I think

what would have been ideal was to get a

fairshare for Muslims in a United India.

The Cabinet Mission Plan put forth the idea of

autonomous Pakistan and Hindustan Units

within the Union of India, with Parity at the

center for Pakistan Unit and India Unit.

However this scheme, perhaps the most

imaginative, was refused by Nehru, not

Jinnah! Jinnah accepted it.

Now my position is simple, we have Pakistan,

and we dont need to be in any Union what so

ever!