Brahmin and Mullah

Re ylh

``Oh by the way, to the Indian who was trying to raise his flag admist Pakistani flags at the Junoon concert, I was the one who slapped you. And since we are a `terrorist` state, I urge you not to take such pangas, again because we might have snipers next time.``

Ah yes, this is the product of a fine Rutgers education. Btw, weren´t you the one who was mentioned as being slapped silly by some girl in a Chowk post a while ago?

Junoon Funoon my a$$. Even they have to come to India to perform to make any real money.

To everyone especially Iqbal Kasim (Former Pakistani Cricketer I presume? Loved your Off spin bowling sir)

The point is that Pakistan remains a practically secular state (that is if India is a practically secular state too though I PERSONALLY CONSIDER BOTH PAKISTAN AND INDIA WAY OFF OF THE IDEALS OF SECULARISM BUT I AM FORCED TO CALL PAKISTAN A PRACTICALLY SECULAR STATE, BECAUSE INDIA, BY THE VIRTUE OF ITS OFFICIAL SECULAR CONSTITUTION WISHES TO BE CALLED A SECULAR STATE) as the testimony of those visiting Pakistan will confirm... there are separate electorates .. but how are the conditions of the minorities in officially `secular` India any better since they have joint electorates... that is not to say that Pakistan should not move towards joint electorates, and I say this because Jinnah himself was extremely pro joint electorates but saw separate electorates as a necessary evil for the Unity of India.

What ever constitutional provisions in the `Islamic` Republic of Pakistan are there to appease the fanatics. Yes there is discrimination against the minorities and yes a lot of them are impoverished but that is a third world phenomenon.

Minorities in India arent any better and that claim I welcome you to check up on. Still we have a lot to do and we are by no means any better than any one, as a matter of fact we are in reality really bad since, I am forced to draw a comparison with India, the myth of whose freedom is unmade in the slums of Calcutta.

Besides we always cared about practical repercussions anyway, to be `officially` secular means jack if you are not in reality.

Now having established parity between India and Pakistan on the question of practical secularism,

let us now see the true Ideals that we need both nations to make

1) Liberty Fraternity Justice

2) Equality for all Citizens regardless of religion caste or creed

3) Egalitarian Governments and state structure

If Pakistan has feudals, benevolent ones in Punjab and more oppressive ones in Sindh, India has mahajins money lenders and manipulative businessmen who live off of the poor (someone please comment on how true the portrayal of Indian Society is in the City of Joy).

Now which of the two states has dominant social and civic values which will be most suited to undo this discrimination. Here lies the essence of Mr Aschettino`s article ...

ISLAM VS HINDUISM

Islam, Pakistan`s dominant civic (and official) religion, with all its alleged flaws is an egalitarian faith with no clergy (hence there can be no theocracy in Islam, and the opposite of theocracy is only a secular state).

Hinduism, India`s dominant civic religion, is a caste ridden society and religious order. Brahmins , the religious elite, form the upper echelons of the society, who are hence either rulers or above the rulers.

So if India is a populist democracy, there is no way in hell it will ever be truly secular, but only secular in name!

Mr Achettino, I see that both Indians like Tvarad and Mr Kasim have failed to differentiate between the concept of state and nation, but it is for some reason very hard to explain to Indians, though our friend Kasim understands it quite well,

only he has been forced fed the wrong definition of `SECULARISM` by the Mullahs.

Henry Kissinger writes in his book `Does America need a foreign Policy`

`Like the Middle East, India is home of great religions. Yet unlike Islam or christianity the Hindu religion is one of endurance, not of personal salvation. Instead it offers the solace of inevitable destiny. It accepts no converts; one is either born into it or is forever denied its comforts. The assured position through caste system is so pervasive that the lower castes chose to remain in the status in the Hindu religion rather than escape it by conversion to one of the available egalitarian faiths, such as Islam or Christianity. Foreigners(YLH`s Exclamation!) could achieve no status in Hindu society; producing an essential imperviousness to foreign rule.` Page 155.

In the earlier paragraph he writes :

`While China has had its own political institutions which gradually imposed chinese culture on conquerors until they became nearly indistinguishable from the Chinese people, India preserved its special character not by coopting foreigners but by segregating them. Indian society might bend to force but it has remained impermeable to alien cultures.`

THE DISHONEST INDIAN CONSUL GENERAL IN NEW YORK

By the way, while we are on the topic, I have looked through almost all of Kissinger books, and I am yet to find the quote that `Shashi Tripathi` the Indian consul general so shamelessly quoted in her propaganda anti-Pakistan speech at Yale which was condemned by Pakistanis and Indians alike.

LONG LIVE PAKISTAN

No Rsaxena, actually the post was in regard to one of the attacks on my life from one of the fundos (your kind in Pakistan)... Junaid you see is a male name...

In any event, the best thing is that Junoon sing Jazba Junoon in India too, and you know thats the most nationalistic song ever.

Pardesi,

The attempt was by an Indian around 30 years of age, to create trouble because junoon were singing Jazba Junoon.

Just because Junoon app ko ghass dalte hain doesnt mean that they are not nationalistic Pakistanis...

Long Live Pakistan

Long Live Junoon!

PS Yes how dare he? Do we go raise Pakistani flags at your stupid functions?

One token Muslim Millionare with a Hindu name , and that too not any more, and Indians keep harping about it.

Well, I`m very happy that the article is being bashed about... that usually means there is a kernel of truth to it :) But seriously, there must be a few points made here...

First, yes I do have a Christian name. This is because, in spite of some pressure from people from time to time, I have no desire to adopt an Arab name. I am Italian, and therefore my religion has nothing to do with my nationality. One of the biggest problems with Islam today is what we sometimes in the liberal community refer to as ``Arab Cultural Imperialism``. You can see this all over the world, especially in America where people convert to Islam and then decide to dress like the Bedouin and have their women wear Arab head-dresses (which, btw, are cultural and not religious). I have no such desire to do these things. As for seeing myself as perfect, I do not. I don`t even see Islam today as perfect since there is a genuine need to re-evaluate much of it in light of modernity. But that is neither here nor there.

I wrote this article to bring attention to the fact that since India is vastly Hindu, there is a real danger of Hinduism taking over the national identity of India. For those who care to know, I have a tremendous interaction with Indians (90% of whom are Hindu) because Rutgers is a very diverse school and has a very large Indian population. I don`t think it has anything to do with who I know, and I`m not basing all of Indian thought on one person, one family. What I AM trying to do is use this as a microcosm of India in general.

There is nothing oxymoronic about a secular Muslim state. During the entire golden age of Islam, from the Ummayyads to the Abbasids, the state was in essence secular with nominal religious things thrown in to distinguish the Caliph as being a Muslim and the empire as being Islamic. It was nothing like modern so called ``Islamic`` states as Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia ect who are really an innovation in the sense that the modern state did not evolve until only about three-hundred years ago.

I ask that you look at the possibility of Muslims existing as a distinct ethnic group in this context. Our ethnicity is set apart by certain religious beliefs and asking for a state where we may live un-persecuted is not asking too much. One must remember always that it was the policies of Hindus that led to the creation of Pakistan and that in reality there would have been terrible troubles in reconciling the two sides in a democratic state with such a vast Hindu majority many of whom had certain hatred for the ``invading`` Muslims.

Also, for those who like to bash Rutgers, I would like to ask where you went to college? Rutgers is one of the finest universities in the country.

Lastly, I would like to point out that I am not being an apologist for Islam in this case. However, I would like to say that I think CE (and now President) Musharraf made some excellent points in his latest speech about the REAL role of Islam in Pakistan and how we need to get back to certain ideals in order to go forward. I will make a few posts commenting on excerpts from his speech later.

Tony

:)

re: RSaxena # 18

Saxena saheb, Junoon se pange na lein tau acchaa hoga :)

The intertwining of religion, religious leaders, and secularim in South Asia makes interesting and somewhat confusing reading.

The Sub-Continent, or great portions or it, was ruled for close to 1000 years by Muslim kings. Yet it still remains predominately Hindu, with a Hindu culture that dominates the Islamic culture, even within Pakistan. Quite contradictory.

What would have happened had the Muslim kings forcibly converted every Hindu to Islam? Would the Sub-Continent have been one gigantic Pakistan or Bangladesh? Would the succeeding generations of the forcibly converted Hindus have cared that their forefathers were converted forcefully to Islam? I doubt it. I am quite convinced my own forefathers were converted against their will to Islam from Hinduism, but it doesn`t really bother me too much.

Pakistan was created by a man who was about as western, secular, and non-religious as any Muslim could be. Yet he created Pakistan on the basis of a separate homeland for a religious minority. But after creating the country on this basis, he then tried his best to make it a secular state. Quite contradictory.

Soon after Jinnah`s death, Pakistan ended up becoming not only a, ``safe haven`` for Indian Muslims, but also an Islamic state (Jinnah wanted the former, but not the later). So much so that Mullahs, of both the enlightened and ignorant variety, became very prominent figures. The rest of the world, including neighboring India, started viewing Pakistan as a Mullah-controlled state, where religion dominated politics. Yet the internals of Pakistan do not support this. In the last election, nearly all the Pakistani religious parties (and there are a great many of them) participated on a combined platform, supporting common candidates. Yet the religious parties won only two seats out of a possible 217+. A religious leader, historically has greater chance of getting elected to the US Congress than he does to the Pakistan National Assembly. Quite contradictory, once again.

India from the start was a secular state, with a secular constitution. It had to be secular. There was no other way for it to survive, since it had a gigantic Muslim population. Not to mention, a large Sikh and Christian population. To its credit, India was able to keep all these diverse religious groups somewhat satisfied within such a large Hindu population (I doubt such large diverse religious groups would have survived in Pakistan). However, the secular Indian govt. turned India into an economic basketcase, which watched a previously backwards Pakistan blow past it in economic and infrastructure growth. So India ended socially ahead of Pakistan and economically behind it.

Now, the situation in India has gone to the other extreme. A completely Hindu nationalist party has been voted into power by the Indians. It has won elections, again and again. If anyone doubts the religious extremism and intolerance of the BJP, they just need to go visit their official website at www.bjp.org. They are about as extremist as any political party in power anywhere. However, the BJP is currently restricted in fully implenting its Hinduvta agenda by the coalition of parties that forms the Indian govt. So now India, with the most religously diverse population in the world, and a secular constitution, is regularly electing a Hindu nationalist party into power. Another odd contradiction.

This party has however turned India`s economic fortunes around. India is now socially less stable than under the secular Congress, but economically more stable. Another contradiction, since social instability usually leads to economic instability.

Hence, it is very difficult to analyze the effects of religion on the people of the Sub-Continent, since there are so many contradictions. Pakistanis vote extremely secularly, although they vote under a completely religious constitution. Indians have started to vote on religious lines, even though they vote under a secular constitution. Another contradiction.

In the end, I think it is economics that runs the show. People vote (or accepts dictators) into power, leadership that can put the most food on their plates; be they religious or secular.

RE: Reply #: 23 ylh

``One token Muslim Millionare with a Hindu name , and that too not any more, and Indians keep harping about it.``

At last count, I believe Azim Premji was worth around $6.7 billion:

http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2001/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2001&passListType=Person&uniqueId=1UFS&datatype=Person

``Pakistan is now taking steps to ensure that there is no confusion on the part of the world; that Pakistan is indeed a secular state founded by Muslims and not an Islamic state. It is up to India to follow the lead on this issue.

The author is a graduate of Rutgers University``

Its got to be the puppy chow :) (I mean it affectionately)

Its nice to know about a nucleus of secular-minded Pakistanis, but what do India and the Ramayana have to do with it AT ALL?

The real battles lie elsewhere. I will suggest the author publish this in a Urdu newspaper in Pakistan and I mean this seriously.

Acheron2 # 24:

..i will still give you the benefit of doubt that you come without prejudice, although extrapolating something incidental to draw civilisational conclusions could indicate such a thing..and you completely overlook the fact that the TV episode you saw may not represent the whole or even essential Hinduism...

``... that usually means there is a kernel of truth to it``

...coming from semitic religions- as you and I do- it is not easy to appreciate Indic religions like Hinduism or Buddhism, especially the former, a task made all the more difficult today with the arrival of pretenders who seek to restore ``lost Hindu glory`` in India and elsewhere...in your article there is some detail you have right about Hinduism as it was practised for several years, but that honestly would not constitute its kernel...

..but the problem with coming from all self-righteous theologies, including semitic religions and Marxism,is that they just do not allow for the validity of another point of view...i do not intend to give a gist of hindu philosophy here (and i cannot), but i want you to appreciate that there could be more meaning to a system of belief than is apparent through a shallow acquaintance with its popular images like ``caste-ridden`` etc....it may interest you to know what the 19th century German scholar Max Mueller thought of indian/hindu philosophy:

``If I were asked under what sky the human mind has most fully developed some of its choicest gifts, has most deeply pondered over the greatest problems of life, and has found solutions of some of them which well deserve the attention even of those who have studied Plato and Kant, I should point to India. And if I were to ask myself from what literature we who have been nurtured almost exclusively on the thoughts of Greeks and Romans, and of the Semitic race, the Jewish, may draw the corrective which is most wanted in order to make our inner life more perfect, more comprehensive, more universal, in fact more truly human a life...again I should point to India.``

...or what Schopenhauer thought of a Hindu text:

``In the whole world there is no study so beneficial and so elevating as that of the Upanishads. It has been the solace of my life -- it will be the solace of my death.``

...the point being made here is that you consider the possibility that your information on Hinduism maybe woefully inadequate..

...the rest of your article where you attempt some sort of commentary on subcontinental history and recent politics including your ending quip - ``that Pakistan is indeed a secular state founded by Muslims and not an Islamic state. It is up to India to follow the lead on this issue `` can only be called amusing and does not require rejoinder...

ylh # 19:

...do you realize how you are tying yourself up in knots with such arguments? ...with your unique understanding of the difference between state and nation, or secularism and multiculturalism -which obviously the indians do not- how you go about denying reality with jargon even when it is pointed out by your country men..

``What ever constitutional provisions in the `Islamic` Republic of Pakistan are there to appease the fanatics.``

...and if you guys undertake such fundamental alterations in the constitution for simply appeasing a few fanatics (who i have been repeatedly told here have the support of possibly 1% of the population)- start respecting your constitution more...

# 8:

``Oh by the way, to the Indian who was trying to raise his flag admist Pakistani flags at the Junoon concert, I was the one who slapped you.``

...another view of your secular liberal facade, i guess...maybe you also should have raised nationalistic objection to Junoon being sponsored by Zee Tv

# 20-

``In any event, the best thing is that Junoon sing Jazba Junoon in India too, and you know thats the most nationalistic song ever.``

..dont worry, no indian would lose much sleep on it..

If the great yahweh can say: ``One token Muslim Millionare with a Hindu name , and that too not any more, and Indians keep harping about it.``

then, so can I make this equally stupid statement: ``One token Muslim student with an Italian name , and that too not any more, and Pakistanis keep harping about it.``

Dear Anthony

You raise the issue of Islam being (ideally) without heirarchy, while Hinduism codifies heirarchy in the caste system. If we see heirarchy as a process of assigning relative values to individuals, Islam codifies heirarchies as well. For example ``Muslims are better than People of the Book who are in turn better than Kaafirs``. Or (I know fundies will argue with this but anyway) ``Men carry greater legal weight than Women`` (as shown in the relative importance of male and female witnesses).

Interestingly, while Islam is very specific about who is and is not a muslim, and then ranks non-Muslims in order of closeness to God`s word (people of the book, the rest) Hinduism does not define who is, or is not, a Hindu. My family is muslim Indian, but if we woke up one morning and decided we were going to call ourselves Hindus there is no scripture or rule to say that we couldn`t. (In fact, some of the more insanely optimistic of the sangh parivar would say we already ARE Hindus by virtue of being from the subcontinent, an idea which is fleetingly appealing in its bizarre ``almost secularism``, but which might make religion based definition of nationhood difficult to maintain - haha! no points for guessing who wouldn`t like that.)

Finally, in a response to a response, you say that Hindus make up 90% of the Indian population. Last time we counted the firgure was 82% and Indian Muslims were 12%, with the rest being from other religions. Just for your information.

Best wishes,

Zafar Al-Talib

PS To hamidm: boss, yeh ruh afzaa peene ki aadath chhor do. Consider your health, yaar...

Re Iqbal Kasim 28

Agreed that Pakistanis of every opinion and creed have a right to the full protection of the Pakistani State.

On the US as a ``secular`` entity - Is Christmas a government or national holiday in USA? Is St. Patricks Day not a semi official, in that it enjoys sanction from the State - Are these examples the same as Indians telling the world that there are laws against caste system?

It may well be true that such laws exist, but the behaviour is different and puts a lie to the assertion. IS USA really secular? and not overwhelmingly Christian in it`s orientation.

Is not the concept of ``secularism`` itself a protestant concept?

My point is not negate yours but rather to suggest that this is a debate without black and white and yet the adherents of the secular religion seem never to agree that this is more grey than black or white.