The Virgin Bride

This is a very well put story..and its the case wiht most of the ppl..mostly the men who marry late are the ones with a "colorful" past and thn thy expect to have a virgin bride...but usualy they dont get one..How ironic! They forget that life goes in circles.

a fictional story about selfcentered and mindless sex-craving animals.
This is the story of 0.1% people in karachi. The ones who`ve never been taught morals or religion.

What goes around comes around.

very well written

excellent article!! The ending was great. I really truly believe that is what happens these days with men who feel they can do anything before marriage and then will settle and be happy with the ``virgin bride``.

uve never been to america have you ?

it shows from the poor quality of ur article

i can bet u its the summer and uve been watching back to back soap operas

so u still think all opera talks about is sex and relationship ..?

well dont justify by saying that u live in the states cause u sure dont

Awesome arcticle.

better start looking for mrs vandalay

Tahmed

Where are you? have you had a chance to read some of this stuff?

Zafar

If you say so, yes :-)

Zafar, Gohwardan, Upman

Once you are at the website - (www.seraj.org) go to ``what`s new`` section and you will find the article. There are a lot of articles in English, Farsi and Turkish.

``Reason, truth, Salvation`` is the name of the article and I think once you guys have had a chance to read it we can discuss it.

Reply Hobbyty #225

Professor - I can only find one English language text in full on the Soroush website, which is about 6 pages long. Baqi sab kahan?

I note, however, that some articles on him have been published in Kayhan - a progressive Iranian magazine (?) which has been closed down (several times, and I think now finally) by the conservatives in the clergy there - so I am predisposed to be impressed.

Zafar

Reply Gowardhan

I am going to do the Muslim/Non-Muslim thing, but give the bloke a second chance boss. Play nicely, no?

Zafar

Reply Upman #222, Gowardhan #223

Upman

Uff Upman, you`re so coherent it leaves very little for the rest of us secular types to say. Unfair!

But, I suspect that:

``Jamaat-e-islami which vehemently denies that Jinnah ever held secular beliefs on their website...``

will reignite that evergreen source of fun and innocent merriment (yes, the Gandhi-Jinnah, who was secular/communal diatribe/oration). Stand by for more cut and pastes (or take the pledge like I have).

Btw - what did you think of the India Today story on Indira Gandhi?

Zafar

Gowardhan

Will do, once I get to the site. Hey - fifty pages is a lot to read twice. Would it be OK if I just did it for the first two pages, or for the conclusions?

Zafar

Dear Zafar

Read that article and see the shear thickness of the way he is presenting his positions, then tell me how I reduce all of that to a page article, without it not sounding superficial or unengaging - but ofcourse you have a point that it`s something that must be done - can I count on for some assist? Actually we can`t do everything the man is talking about - but if you read the article I mentioned, you will see that should be considered as a possible choice - I have not been through everything there, and really I think what will be most helpful would be distill some of his ideas on the original Ijtehad, Ijma and Shura - although the paper on religious pluralism really needs to presented to everybody on Chowk, becaue it handles really a good number of questions that come in our discussion and suggests that we can have but one option, instead of examing the positions and displaying that we do not necessarily need to have only that option.

Gohwardan

You stop that right now, Mister! before you call it snake oil, at least investigate - actually you have a responsibility to investigate it. These ideas are effecting your lives and will continue to for quite some time. You may be able to clarify others thinking on these issues as well.

Upman

You have changed the premise, ``Anti Islamic ideas are taking hold in Indian society`` (which is a polemic) to ``India hold secularism as public value greater than all others``. OK, fine. I take your point. i wonder if you will take my point that even if ``obvious``, had a good number Indian interlocutors simply said yes that is so - and then went on to point that that is not the whole story - I think it would have made for a more open discussion.

Have you had a chance to get to the www.seraj.org site yet, have you read the articles? What is your thinking? I`m genuinely interested in your persepective.

Reply Hobbyty #221

Dear Professor Hobbyty

I shall delve into seraj.org and report back (with more question). Many thanks for the reference.

Zafar

PS A possible suggestion for your article – a discussion of Mr Soroush’s works? (No, now you can’t escape writing the article. I strongly feel that yeh aap ke kismet me likkha hai.)

hobbyty 221

If there are real alternatives to progressive secular ways of treating everyone equally, people should be able to explain them in two pages or less.

The quality of the seraj.com, what personally happened to the person this site projects, compared to the number and quality of other sites purporting to be Islamic (hundreds thousands of them) doesnt support the idea that this person can be truthfully taken as a posterboy of Islamists.

If one claims to be an Islamist one should project websites run by a majority of Islamists. Just like Hindutva vadis cant claim the website run by Mulayam Singh can be taken as an authority of Hindutva philosophy.

I would call that snake oil selling.

Zafar if you read those 50 pages, do an experiment. Switch the words Muslims and non-Muslims for each other. If you reach the exact same conclusion, then the ideas may be something to consider. If you do not, you are looking at whitewashed bigotry all over again. That is the kind of bigotry sold under different names for a thousand years. That is the only fair way of viewing ideas.

hobbyty # 218:

``now that after 3 weeks on banging my head to promote a debate on Hindutva ideas and being called bigot, hypocrite and shamelesse - and after youse guys not engaging in this - now you decide it`s time to talk``

...my and several others difference with what you were saying was obvious all along- that though hindutva (and hence `ideas hostile to islam`) has increased its influence in the past several years, it is nowhere near defining indian polity, and it will never be...the only change that can happen as a result of this conflict b/w the indian state and hindutva is that the latter changes, moderates or is abandoned...the upswing in that ideology`s appeal had a variety of causes, and not all were intellectual/religious, as is true in most such cases...the essence of what i am saying is said by this Dawn columnist:

`It also goes to their credit that they did not try to withdraw into a narrow Hindu shell but restated their abiding commitment to the concept of a modern

republic. Yes, they have had their problems along the way, say, for instance, in Ayodhya as well as in the resurgence of Hindu revivalism in the Hindi belt in the north. But India`s institutions have proved more than a match for elements seeking Hinduization of its state apparatus. Even the BJP

which used to be considered at one time a Hindu revivalist party has had to modify its stance to make itself acceptable to a polyglot national electorate.And what it could not achieve at the hustings it has substantially gained by pursuing a policy of moderation and coalition politics in the parliament as well as in the states of India.`

http://www.dawn.com/2001/08/19/op.htm#3

...what i objected to was an attempt on your part to present what most reasonable indians are fighting against as a fait accompli..all your cutouts were clearly part of a vigorous debate on, and you would present such as the final proof of your assertions....the idea of secularism is so well entrenched in Indian public life that even the RSS/BJP claim that they are fighting for `true` secularism, however dishonest that claim be....this is unlike, say, Jamaat-e-islami which vehemently denies that Jinnah ever held secular beliefs on their website...point being the fact that secularism is the way public life and state affairs should be conducted is beyond dispute in india...

..i remb you asked somewhere `how many people in India understand what secularism is?`...this is a v. significant point..the q is also applicable to democracy, and through my fascination with indian politics i have realized a few things:

a/ though many people in india may not be aware of the english word secular (though you`ll be surprised how many, even illiterate, people are), it is the default human response in a multi-religious scenario...that one respects what another person holds sacred...one may not agree with the object of veneration, but it is the person`s reverence that is respected....it requires much active pedagogy to remove this instinct of people which is what extremist versions of religions seek to do...

b/ even democracy -participative, elected running of a community`s affairs- is something that comes almost naturally...though i must say that it did require the energy of the pre-47 movement to articulate this desire among indian masses...

...in both the above, gandhi`s pre-eminence as the leader of independence helped india tremendously...his absolute insistence on respect for all religions and Hindu-muslim unity as also his conversion of the Congress from an elitist debating club to a truly democratic mass movement helped independent india define its nationhood as a secular democracy, inspite of its birth being accompanied by tremendous religious ill-will and bitterness..and the excuses for autocracy such occasions provide..

btw, though i could be wrong, i`m not aware any well-known musician by name of V Sub...is it L. Subramaniam the violinist you are referring to?

Zafar, Tahmed, PM, Temporal, Upman

Zafar Mian,

Actually I have just the article for you - (in response to what does it mean to be a Muslim and live in a non-Muslim majority environment - it the same as living in a Musling majority enironment) - The article or discussion is again, Soroush - suprise! It`s called ``Truth, Reason, Salvation`` (www.seraj.org/pluralism.pdf)

Be warned it`s about 50 or some pages and thick - but rewarding. It open up simply vast fields for exploration and discussion. Please give me some input when you get a chance, so that I can better understand it.

``The journey is the destination``

Please visit the website www.seraj.org - it is dedicated to the work of Soroush and contains many aticles and discussions and interviews. Just a world of discussion, every question , openning up even more questions.

I`m given to understand that this V. Subramanium is very famous and everybody loves his music in India -

Reply Hobbyty #218

Hobbyty

“Do you really believe that I engage in personal abuses?”

Calling me a “house Muslim” is pretty personal. No? What about “juvernile”?

“Hobbyty. I have never called your ideas “hooey”, so I don’t appreciate your responding to an imaginary statement from me”

The trick was your responding to a “statement” from me which I never made. (Shades of your quote fr Ms Rao.) Geddit?

“ Are you willing to post them without indulging in implied or overt character assassination of people that you assume don’t agree with you? – More of the “did you beat your wife today” questions!. Zafar, this is juvenile and not worthy of you.”

Yes, true. But richly deserved. (Or at least provoked.) Sorry. Muaf?

“On submitting articles – You know, I do not think of myself as being generally well read on this subject – I think I have a crude understanding – so much work needs to be done, because the field is so vast. However; perhaps I should give it serious thought or at least try to contribute in some way to others articles.”

Don’t underestimate yourself. Most of us are “amateur” commentators here on Chowk. I’m sure we’d learn a lot. Generally the ideas you spelled out seemed very reasonable starting points to me – but I’d be interested in seeing them debated (if not resolved) – especially if people had the knowledge intention to do some proper ijtehad. (TAhmed!!!!!!!)

A possible discussion point. What would an Islamist standpoint mean for Muslims who live in a country which is predominantly not Muslim (like India)? Another: how would atheists fare in Islamia?

“May I ask you two favors: 1. Please read the Robin Wright article again. 2. On an entirely different vein, do you know of an artist by the name of V. Subramanium? Where I can learn more about this person and his/her work?”

I shall do so. V Subramanium? No idea.

As for Hindutva debate – so far Stuka seems (??) to be the only person to be willing to enter into this dialogue with you. So that’s started.

Looking forward to reading your articles (and posts)

Zafar

Well Sadna, Upman and Zafar, lemme just say you guys have given me much to think about. As I said earlier, I know I am not communal, therefore it is /was easy for me to reject those who are blatantly communal. I guess I`ll have to go back and do a lot more reading and thinking about the RSS, BECAUSE IN MY MIND IT WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE REST.

Anyway, I think this discussion has been quite fruitful. Now, back to HobbyTy....

Zafar

Thanks for the responses. Now some objections:

``I was not silent Hobbyty. I told you: if you don’t like it being done to you, don’t do it to other people first. Why is that seen as silence, and why is that hard to understand?``

Do you really believe that I engage in personal abuses? I think I challenge positions and not persons. Anyway, Does this change the fact that you were conspicuous by your silence – I think not.

“Hobbyty. I have never called your ideas “hooey”, so I don’t appreciate your responding to an imaginary statement from me” The idea here was not that you think the idea was hooey but that YOU said, it was a “trick”.

“ Are you willing to post them without indulging in implied or overt character assassination of people that you assume don’t agree with you? – More of the “did you beat your wife today”

questions!. Zafar, this is juvenile and not worthy of you.

Am I alone in being unclear about what you mean by “Islamism”? Reading your posts has not given me any clear definition,” I think that is a fair thing to say. There is a lot of confusion on this account because the “Islamism” is just a vast field of intellectual endeavor and the word “I slamist” also has numerous connotations, not all positive. Zafar, If you will have followed my posts from the very beginning of my interaction on Chowk, I believe Muslims should give a great deal more credence to concepts of Ijtehad and Ijma. Like the majority of persons who have a modicum of education, I believe the challenge for most Muslims and Islam in general, is to turn away from reactionary and ultra conservative interpretations, towards debates, with a view to leading the Ummah back towards an interpretation that can be defended and one with which a majority of Muslims tend to agree. In earlier posts on this board, I have suggested that our ethics no longer support our morality. I meant to say that while our ethical teachings support a very reactionary and backward worldview, our morality does not. I had presented the work of Wright about A. K. Soroush and Al-Ghannouchi, to suggest a worldview, not only I, but a very large number of Muslims are coming to see as more correct, more true, more Islamic.

From My point of view, what is called political Islam has no more claim than any other to the loyalty of citizenry – what I seek to reject is the call of both, a government by and for clerics, and a worldview that not only denies the role of religious faiths in public organization, but seems specific to rejecting any role for Islam in public organization. I remain open as I said to Nasah, to any space that allows for the validity and free competition of ideas in the political arena and remain open to secularist as well as Islamist ideas sharing such a space without coersion or overt hostility.

On submitting articles – You know, I do not think of myself as being generally well read on this subject – I think I have a crude understanding – so much work needs to be done, because the field is so vast. However; perhaps I should give it serious thought or at least try to contribute in some way to others articles.

May I ask you two favors: 1. Please read the Robin Wright article again. 2. On an entirely different vein, do you know of an artist by the name of V. Subramanium? Where I can learn more about this person and his/her work?

On economy/economics - I could not agree with you more of the undesirablity of government control of the economy - on the other hand, in a paradigm such as Pakistan, where businessmen are called ``Traders`` and officials, elected representatives and politicians are called ``Rulers`` - it would be disasterous for the majority to have an economy without some measure of Governmental control of productive resources.

Stuka

Many times our difficulty has been speaking past one another because we have not agreed to a definition of out terms - And as long as you going to respond and it is your responsibility to respond – because Islamism or political Islam is going effect your life, it already is – it effects the lives of all of us – therefore it is not enough to simply say one rejects the role of any religiously based view in the shaping of society – one has to engage intelligently. This is an opportunity to shape the debate inside and outside Islamia – saying one rejects such a debate is not going to make the debate go away. Please give this some serious thought.

Many Muslims and non-Muslims are deeply concerned by reactionary elements within political Islam or Islamism – there is no point is rejecting the entire debate – that would be the equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

Getting back to the definition of terms, am I mistaken that the way you understand “secularism” includes the participation of all persons and ideologies in the civil political process? By suggesting that we can not include certain groups or ideologies, we can not deny the pressure on the system, we cannot deny that such ideas have grown within a context, that they maintain a legitimacy for large numbers – you follow? By one argues that they should be or can be rejected, one should accept the responsibilty of the response that may follow. It’s not a valid response to say I will not participate in the debate – it is the equivalent of saying I’m not going to take responsibility for ideas and events that will influence my life in a major way. So, please do give this serious thought. Please do not fall into the trap of ``do it to them before they do it to us`` - because this cuts of any further discussion and ensures that all sides ``do it to the other first``. We must guard against this logic/anti logic.

The events in central Asia are going to effect the lives of Indians and the economic well being of the Indian State. Some clear and responsible thinking is required. Islamist and Islamism is being cultivated in the West for some reason, isn’t it? Are Western intellectuals less secular, less democratic, etc? If intellectuals in the West are allowing for space for these ideas, can we afford to be rejectionist only?

We are not only neighbors, we are blood relations with one another and Central Asians. We have to educate ourselves about the issue and engage in a responsible manner. It’s important to note that this is an opportunity to shape the debate. When denied legitimate space, Islam, Islamism, islamists have gone underground and are armed; the stability of the State, national and regional economies is threatened – are these the kind of consequences we seek to develop?



Now that after 3 weeks on banging my head to promote a debate on Hindutva ideas and being called bigot, hypocrite and shamelesse - and after youse guys not engaging in this - now you decide it`s time to talk - What clearer example of Indian conspiracy is required. A pox on you.

And tell me if you know of this V. Subramanium.

Stuka, upman
Small snapshots of 3 generations(actually 2 1/2) impressions of RSS grassroots. Two are based in the `old city` area of a NIndian city. May I emphasize grassroots? This is beside and quite unconnected to what the leadership was upto.

Well, 40-50 years ago, according to a family member, the grassroots activities were simple : `charitra nirman`. To avoid bad habits like smoking, drinking gambling, to spend time engaging in sports and groups activity, to think of something beyond oneself, of desh, in short. Pre-independence, some of the more active grassroots members courted arrest in local noncooperation events. These were individuals taking initiative for self- and general awareness and improvement, taking as loose basis, already-held-and-valued precepts from their own personal religious tradition.


When the question was raised then(and it was), why are only Hindus to get together for `charitranirman` in RSS, the answer was that role models one took inspiration from were mainly from Hindu tradition, Muslims maynot be able to empathise. Such an explanation maynot have created too much of a stir among common people back then because apparently H-M communal riots were a serious and endemic problem. I am guessing its hard for us now to appreciate that the ideas of multireligious Indian identity and self-aware citizenry we subscribe to without second thought now, were moot questions and unproven in their validity back then. Even the viability of India as we think of it today was not a given, I can extrapolate. Nehru and the Congress looked down on the RSS/ Jan Sangh almost as outcastes, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya died mysteriously, but some acknowledged RSS cadres `discipline` had come into its own during some crises.

OK then we come to about 20-25 years ago. Same location, same shaakhaa activities(generally), another family member had a serious altercation with the local shaakha on the subject of why Muslims were excluded, and on the RSS emphasis on religion an emphasis which seemed retrogressive in the age of science. Then one heard of RSS functionaries being jailed during the Emergency.

Now, to my own `exposure`. Deep down South, not so many years ago, the warden of my college`s hostels was a RSS member. There was a local ABVP chapter, indulging in the same thuggery that the other organisations did, but the warden was something else. Any male student who refused to join the ABVP was refused accomodation in the hostel by the warden and I am talking of a Government college here. Well, the warden was hated for it but what could be done except file complaints(perhaps)? There were many who stayed in city lodges during their education. Another `insight` one got was the news of RSS/CPM grassroots workers like headload workers, and shopkeepers who have kept murdering each other over the last many years, I cannot explain why.

The conclusion I reach is, no so-called `ideology` retains its pristine purity of intention down at the grassroots level. Though the current `secular` ideologies espouse inclusion at the conceptual level, at the working level, their adherents are as heinous as everyone else and often escape the consequences of their actions by using their pious and professed beliefs as a convenient cover. Witness the many incidents of incitement to violence and crocodile tears about the same by of the Congress/leftist parties over the years.

However, ideologies even smelling of any sort of exclusion at the conceptual level, even through `semantics` which can whitewashed with great energy and contortionism, are much much worse in todays world. An insistence on a `Hindu` validation on every sphere of public activity as the RSS seems to insist, is firstly totally unacceptable. Such an insistence invites automatic alienation of many, as upman says, even Hindus.

There is no good case that can be made in a multireligious free society for setting up a conceptual superstructure for what is at `best`, nothing but an artifical RSS-defined scale of `Hinduness` to judge Hindus and others and at worst, explicit exclusion of groups based on religion.

IMO, lets be clear, the best is horrible and the worst is horrible.

Moreoever, selected bits of RSS ideology and workings may result in `sincere, positive and disciplined` grassroots activity within its own limited scope, but the much worse and inevitable consequence of fructification of this ideology is the mainstreaming of intimidation solely based on religion at the street level.

I donot see how this does Hinduism or Indians ANY good, the reverse! So take away those smooth talkers and lock them up thats where they deserve to be! (I donot mean you Stuka)

HobbyTy:

The article in point reflects the fear that secular governments have of ANY religion based fundamentalist governement. Basically, the fear that secularists have is that if you allow free elections, and the Islamists win, they will invoke the sharia, and will never allow elections again. Its a catch 22 situation. Allow the fundamentalists to take over now, and see democracy raped later, or rape democracy now and keep the fundamentalists at bay. Your reference to Central Asia is equally relevant to ALgeria, Turkey and to some extent Egypt. Also, the Waco action, although not national in nature, was a similar assault on Christian fundamentalists. The Key is not islam, it is fundamentalism.

Pakistan MAY face a similar situation too. Keep this in mind. The Taliban government has refused to recognize the Durand line. Let us assume they sort out the Northern Alliance in 5 years. What next? They may decide to inflict their brand of islam on Pakistan. You may face a situation of competing islamic ideologies, and I do not beieve that the competing ideologies on something as abstract and personal as religion, any religion, can be sorted out by dialogue.

HobbyTy, you have many times pointed out the faults in the Hindutva movement. Notwithstanding my views about your right to make those criticisms, I have often seen the truth your statements contain. I look at the ISM of Hindutva and not the implementation on the street and I defend it. Look at my conversation with Upman about the RSS. I know that I see the truth in his interacts. However, his truths reflect upon the implementation of the RSS agenda on the street, and I choose to ignore the implementation while feeling good about the ideology and ISM.

I think you are in the same boat as me, just on different sides of the river. I may choose nationalism, and you may choose religion, but ultimately both are ideologies, sounding good on paper and in discourse, but a whole different ball game, when combined with politics, human nature and all that good stuff.

Reply Stuka #210



Stuka

“Are you talking about the riots of Moradabad which took place in 1980 and 1981? Fron what I have heard, it was a one sided massacre of Hindus. In fact, what we were told is that in every riot from 1947 to 1989, since the Congress always supported Muslim organizations, it was the Himdus that got killed in much larger numbers. I am not saying that is true, but I`m saying that it does sound plausible.”

Generally speaking, minorities do not start riots. The numbers don’t add up. Especially when the police force in UP is overwhelmingly Hindu.

The riots in Moradabad had a definite economic basis – or at least this was an important factor. Traditionally the brass workers in Moradabad have been Muslim, while the middlemen are Hindus. Friction between them, and the attempt by some groups of brass workers to sell directly to retailers, was said to be what set off the riot. This seems to make sense – going by the feeling one got reading the newspaper Moradabad seemed to spend months at a time with some sort of curfew in operation. Generally communally motivated riots are short spasms of madness – economic (even class) conflict might take much longer to work itself out since the roots of this conflict are more concrete.

Zafar

Reply Hobbyty #209

Hobbyty

“My champion of fairness - you were silent on the an intellectual lyching (``they pose the questions, the decide the content of the answers...``)”

I was not silent Hobbyty. I told you: if you don’t like it being done to you, don’t do it to other people first. Why is that seen as silence, and why is that hard to understand?

(Also – I tend not to log onto Chowk over the weekend. Hence my response didn’t happen till the week started. Kya karen? But I like being called CoF - please continue to do so with my blessing.)

“Please do not imagine that we are unfamiliar with what ``secularism`` means or that we have not studied these ideas or that we have not held them before some others even became aware of these.”

Have I ever tried to explain secularism to you? I think you’ll find not. Defending why I think it is a better way to order heterogeneous societies than any other is not the same thing.

“Whereas you see statements such as ``now you, hamidm... maybe right that these ideas are hooey`` as a ``trick`` - many others will see it as an attempt to be fair, to be open that ideas of others may have merit, which ofcourse they do.”

Hobbyty. I have never called your ideas “hooey”, so I don’t appreciate your responding to an imaginary statement from me where I do just that. Hamidm can speak for himself (and does, generally very well).

“Please do not be convinced by any position I hold or assert, but at least be open to their validity to others. If you are going to say you are a secularist, then acknowledge that tolerance is basic to such an idea, otherwise a trap awaits you, one in which you may find yourself arguing that ``we did it to them because we are convinced that they would do it us, if they got the chance``.

Hobbs, I am happy (in fact keen) to respond to any IDEAS you post – and I would be very interested in knowing what you feel are Islamist ideas. Are you willing to post them without indulging in implied or overt character assasination of people that you assume don’t agree with you? If you do this I think you’ll find a far more rational and respectful response than you’ve managed to elicit so far from people who disagree with you.

(As for what I MAY find myself arguing, well I equally well MAY NOT. After all, you MAY find yourself arguing in favour of the religious tolerance the Taleban have been showing in Afghanistan….possibilities are infinite. See the point above, it’s related.)

Am I alone in being unclear about what you mean by “Islamism”? Reading your posts has not given me any clear definition. Perhaps an article by yourself on this subject might be a good one to submit to Chowk.

Another good subject would be (related to your post #211) the relationship between democratic freedom and political Islam. I think it would be hard for people to argue with the basic premise that people organising themselves by anything they chose is a fundamental democratic right. There are, however, a lot of interesting issues regarding differences of opinion on what an Islamic polity is and should be, the scope of political Islam in heterogeneous societies (take Ahmadiyas in Pakistan, for example, or Baha’is in Iran) and peaceful change of Government when at least part of the Governing elite might claim to speak for the Almighty (so why should they listen to the people?).

I think it’s a fascinating subject – I also get the feeling that you have read widely on it, and perhaps an article (or two, or three) might be a good way to get your core ideas across without the distraction of ongoing immediate debate. Good ideas can only get stronger when questioned, because the process clarifies them – especially if one’s approach is flexible.

“By the way, did you get a chance to read the article about reformist ideas of Soroush and Al-Ghannouchi - what are your thoughts?”

I did, quickly. On first squiz I like Soroush better. Some boards ago I was enthusing about Fatima Mernissi. What do you think of her? (I got a mixed response. Some liked. Some didn’t.)

I find it frustrating that we often seem to be speaking past each other in these exchanges we have. I do think that I’d gain from a deeper understanding of what your views are (if only to understand why I don’t agree with you or – horror of horrors – why I do – no, no that seems unrealistic). And I must say that your saying that you had changed your thinking on the “speaking for Indian Muslims” thing, as well as your consistent speaking up for women’s issues (when they occur) speak well of you.

Write those bloody articles! Or you and I may start copping some flak because we’re cluttering up so many boards with our aggar maggar etc.

Zafar

PS Ref #211 – I would give Iran a mixed review. On one hand it is more democratic than it has ever been in its history, and there are some really exciting social programs current there which leave the rest of the Muslim world for dead, especially re: literacy and birth control/family planning. On the other hand the consequences of letting mullahs run the economy have been pretty dire, and their answerability to the people in the form of elections remains limited.

Hey Upman, Stuka - enough already - I`m supposed to be the bad guy here and I want some comments on the editorial I posted - you hear me? Ok , then, now give me some input, what do think?

Stuka # 204:

* i think its acknowledged that Godse was an RSS member but at the time of the assassination he was editing some other newspaper, and this argument was used by RSS to deny a then current connection....no membership records at that time, so no legal link...like i said, same old trick..

*``the RSS actively shuns politics``

..are you serious?..it comments on everything from economic policy to the tehelka episode!..and of course its favourite topic- indigenisation of minorities...and what about RSS sangchalaks `on loan` to the BJP?..Swadeshi jagran Manch?

*``the RSS and the VHP / Bajrang Dal do not have transfers etc``

i dont have names now but i distinctly remember reading several VHP and bajrang dal leaders` CVs showing middle-level sangchalak roles in the RSS...also wasnt Dattopant thengdi of BMS a senior RSS functionary..

*``In any case, Gandhi was not, and never will be an RSS icon.``

..i quote from the RSS website:

[RSS IS THE TRUE TOUCH-BEARER OF MAHATMA GANDHI`S LEGACY

By. Dr. Dinesh Agrawal

In RSS Mahatma Gandhi is revered very highly, a great soul (MAHATMA), one of the greatest son of mother India, a humanist par excellence, and a real saint (Sant). He is remembered each morning at RSS shakhas in its Pratah Smaran (morning prayers) and among hundreds of great men who are revered by RSS, he has been placed,even at much higher order than the founder of RSS,Dr. Hedgewar.]

http://www.rss.org/gandhi-torch.htm

...between the two of your quotes, i know you are being more truthful..however truth has never been an impediment to an RSS on the glorious road of Hindu revivalism...there is much i can write about your comments on gandhi, but some other time (my professor already suspects that much of the furious typing i`m doing is not related to coursework)

*``I personally feel that it is a very unfortunate choice of words because it will alienate non Hindu minorities I am not going to defend what I myself am not comfortable with.``

..maybe you are not aware of what `alienate` means..its implications and ramifications..at the personal and social level..your use of the word unfortunate above is symptomatic of that uncomfortable space many majorities before you have found themselves in when allowing and appeasing bigotry...you do not have to defend the RSS but may have to defend your support for it someday..

...but the India RSS today finds itself in is no pushover that it might have been in the 30s or 40s..certain institutions have developed and entrenched, and that is why i am confident India will prevail over its shallow, divisive, instant-nationalism..

... i appreciate your open-mindednes...i am aware of that lilting effect the RSS has in their highly cultured Hindi when they talk about maryada, sanskriti and sanskaran..about sanatan dharma and all other nice and inclusive things about india..about the scourge of casteism and corruption..about the need for discipline and ideology in life...everything good and reasoneable..

..then the slightly unpleasant stuff comes in- we just want muslims and x`ians to be proud indians first! -now how could anyone find anything objectionable in that!-..thats how these things work..it carries the assumption that a muslim or x`ian cannot be a proud indian- it Generalizes, labels, stereotypes..then will come sermons on pre-independence and post-independence injustices on hindus...hindus have endured all this as if we were napunsaks..that shift in tenor and imagery to primal emotions......

..anyway dont have the time for the rest..later...it may or may not surprise you that fundamentalists of every hue sound like this- muslim, christian, marxist, whatever to their admirers...perfectly reasonable and fighting against a hostile world out to decimate them..

..wouldnt mind hearing a differing view...have been converted before...but then about the RSS i think i`ve heard more than whats healthy...

Nasah, Hamidm, Zafar, Stuka, Upman, Ali1, Tahmed,Gohwardan

Below is a reproduction of an editorial from the NYT - I have continuously argued that Islam is the single most important context in Islamia and that personal and pulic distinctions must be developed within that context - please comment on this editorial:

`` From NYT

August 16, 2001

Islam in Central Asia

The people of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have always lived under despots. Their history is so dismal that Communism for them was a time of relative prosperity. Now, 10 years after they became independent nations, they have once again become sultanates, ruled by tyrants who maintain tight control of political and economic activity.

While the governments claim they are a steadying force, their repression is creating instability. Uzbekistan is leading a regionwide crackdown on all forms of Islam that are not state-controlled — repression that is driving entire villages into opposition and forcing religion underground. An Islamic guerrilla movement seeks to establish an Islamic state in Uzbekistan, but its 1,000 or so fighters are mainly active when the snows blocking the mountain passes between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan melt each August. Far more dangerous is the crushing response of Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan`s authoritarian president. If a Taliban-style threat arises in Central Asia, it will be because the dictatorships inadvertently helped to create it.

When the Soviet empire broke up, millions of people in Central Asia began to practice Islam. Unfortunately, local governments saw religion that was independent of the state as a threat. In Uzbekistan, the most populous of the Central Asian nations, with 25 million people, the government has arrested thousands of religious Muslims and sentenced hundreds of them to long jail terms, even though they were not accused of violent acts. Thousands of villagers in Islamic areas have been forcibly resettled.

The current guerrilla movement arose in part because of government actions. When the mass arrest of Muslims began in 1997, young religious men went underground or fled to safety in Afghanistan or Tajikistan, where they made contact with more militant movements. Mr. Karimov has used an unsolved February 1999 bombing, which some believe was carried out by the security forces, as a justification for an even wider crackdown.

While American officials talk about human rights when they meet with their Central Asian counterparts, Washington`s interest in the region`s oil and gas reserves and fear of another Afghanistan limit American criticism. Washington has never counted Uzbekistan among the nations that violate religious freedom. It richly deserves to make the list in September. The military and economic cooperation given in the name of assuring stability may in fact be helping to brew dangerous instability. The real parallel for Central Asia could be Iran under the Shah, who suffocated his nation into revolution.``

Imagine, if we can institutionalize the debate and the ideas A. K. Soroush and R. Al-Ghannouchi should gain ground, which you know, will gain ground, as the experience in Iran shows - Imagine the service performed to the hundreds of millions, imagine the prosperity, the stability - please comment.

Ali 1

Are you talking about the riots of Moradabad which took place in 1980 and 1981? Fron what I have heard, it was a one sided massacre of Hindus. In fact, what we were told is that in every riot from 1947 to 1989, since the Congress always supported Muslim organizations, it was the Himdus that got killed in much larger numbers. I am not saying that is true, but I`m saying that it does sound plausible.

Let me give you a sense of perspective. Back in 1990-91, I used to be an ABVP member. This was in my lukha 1st year college days, where student politics are basically a license to get away from attendance hassles. All this stuff that I`m regurgitating now is from back then. I only tried to explain to HobbyTy, the world view of these organizations, AS THEY SEE IT.

Don`t get me wrong. I`m not a Hindu fanatic, though yes, I`ve admitted it before, I used to be. Whereas I have seen and heard enough of the VHP and Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena to condemn all these organizations, in my own heart I am not yet ready to put the RSS in the same category. Be it family background, nostalgia, or a sense of idealism, I would like to give the RSS the benfit of doubt. There are no doubt individuals who misuse the RSS name to serve their own twisted ends. But, as a national service oriented organization, I will not put the RSS in the same basket as VHP, Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal.

The most important thing is that I am a thinking individual, and if I see that the RSS puts more importance to religion than nationality, then I will unhesitatingly condemn it. There is no question about that.

Rsridhar

I am not supporting secularism, I am suggesting that so many of the Indian secularist are not either.

Zafar

I know of no other on Chowk, who would accept, besides myself, that they are Islamist but I bet you will see a great many more in the near future.

My champion of fairness - you were silent on the an intellectual lyching (``they pose the questions, the decide the content of the answers...``) All this did was reveal the shallowness and malevolence of would be lynchers, as was my purpose in responding to Gohwardan. I wonder now, If he and others here, will review their notions of fairness and the tolerance of ideas that differ from one`s own; in this case mine coming from an Islamist world view, a presentation of which is also posted on this board.

Please do not imagine that we are unfamiliar with what ``secularism`` means or that we have not studied these ideas or that we have not held them before some others even became aware of these. I contend we have a deeper understanding of these ideas than many of our Indian and some pakistani ``secularists``. It is for these reasons you will see a good many more ``Islamist`` on Chowk. Whereas you see statements such as ``now you, hamidm... maybe right that these ideas are hooey`` as a ``trick`` - many others will see it as an attempt to be fair, to be open that ideas of others may have merit, which ofcourse they do.

On the ``Why I am leaving board``, I had said to Nasah, that if a position can exist wherein both the secularist and views such as mine my share space, I would support such a space.

Please do not be convinced by any position I hold or assert, but at least be open to their validity to others. If you are going to say you are a secularist, then acknowledge that tolerance is basic to such an idea, otherwise a trap awaits you, one in which you may find yourself arguing that ``we did it to them because we are convinced that they would do it us, if they got the chance``.

By the way, did you get a chance to read the article about reformist ideas of Soroush and Al-Ghannouchi - what are your thoughts?

Reply Hobbyty #185

Hobbyty

“As to whether I learned something or not? Yes, I did. Recall my contention that Pakistan will be voice for Muslims in India - to a degree this is true, but from reading your posts with devkant and also Stuka and Narain`s I do now realize why my position was objectionable to you and others, and that my position needs to rethought, it`s basic assumption reexamined.”

I’ve learned a lot too. My first reaction to your posts was disbelief in your integrity. Now I see that you may not have been motivated by malice but by your own assumptions of what was true in the world. My assumption pre-Chowk was that Indians and Pakistanis really are the same. Now I’m questioning that – I still think we are more like each other than anybody else, but the differences are significant. Not necessarily bad or good, just significant.

“Yet others suggest that I, who brought this [anti-Islamism growing in India] in to discussion am the very same as the VHP, RSS, etc.”

I wouldn’t say that Hobbyty. I do think, however, that some of your assumptions about who “us” and “them” are are close to views held by the VHP, RSS etc. – in that you see religious differences between people as signficant, and rightly so, at the level of public life.

For example, you say:

“No, I do not promote a ``Us versus Them`` thinking. Quite the opposite. But I acknowledge it`s existence, that is when I am confronted with that kind of thinking. When confronted by a ``us versus them`` thinking, I do suggest that we should pay back in the same coin.”

Either us/them based on religion is morally acceptable, or it is not. For me the question is: what is moral and healthy for Indian society? If us/them based on religion is a bad idea this week, it’s a bad idea next week too – regardless of what happens in Pakistani or Bangladeshi or Nepali society. I would imagine you might feel the same way about society in Pakistan.

Anyway, looking forward to your next post.

Zafar

PS Is it significant that the majority of my posts these days consist of interactions with Islamists and (perhaps) Hindutvawadis?

PPS Ref # 196

“You pose the questions, You chose the content of the answers! You summarize the answers!, you come to conclusions not warranted by the answers - And you are fair and open to inquiry? - You Indian nationalist, sorry, secularist are a very fair bunch. Where is my champion, Zafar - He of ethical responsibility? Where is Dehko na Neptune, Dehko?”

If you don’t like it happening to you, don’t do it to other people first.

Reply Upman #193

Beautifully put.

Reply Hobbyty #200

Hobbyty

You made a lot of interesting points here. But you ended with:

“Now you, Hamidm, gohwardan, Zafar, et al - may be absoluteley right that these ideas are hooey…”

Arre – phhir vahi baath. And after complaining that others are putting words in your mouth not so long ago? In my opinion you have plenty to say, and resorting to these tricks takes away from, rather than supporting, your arguments.

Zafar

Re:Reply #: 196

hobbyty,

Let us talk about the killing fields of Karachi or why Jehad is not being condemned by Pakistanis. When your country becomes secular, we can talk why India is not as secular as you would like it to be. Remember the old adage ``practise before you preach``.

sridhar

UPMAN :

Where do I even begin? Let me just say that you post a powerful arguement.

Let me first deal with the specifics:

1. Yes ``Hindutva`` was coined by Veer Savarker, member of the Hindu Mahasabha, and not a member of the RSS. However, that is neither here nor there. Fact remains, Narayan Apte, a co-accused was an RSS member. Godse too was an RSS sympathizer. I am not sure if he was a member or not.

2. The VHP/ Bajrang Dal cannot call itself political organizations because of Indian laws. However, Katiyar etc, do stand and win elections as BJP/independants. Again, the VHP has been quite upfront about its political ambitions, whereas the RSS actively shuns politics. Anyone person standing for election, cannot be an office bearer of the RSS, though he /she may continue to remain sympathisers

3. Well, from what I know, the RSS and the VHP / Bajrang Dal do not have transfers etc. I guess we have different opinions on that.

4. Inclusive Hinduism. Ok, this is going to be a tough one. See, Gandhi`s vision of inclusive Hinduism was religious in nature, whereas the RSS looks at Hindutva as a cultural and national identity and NOT a religion.

In any case, Gandhi was not, and never will be an RSS icon. This has nothing to do with Gandhi`s vision, but has everything to do with his interference in National Interest. I recommend that you read Manohar Moolgavkar`s book, ``The Men who Killed Gandhi``. The Gandhi assasination was not an RSS conspiracy, though the conspirators were certainly RSS members/sympathizers.

It is a historical fact that Gandhi, at the time of his death was a hugely unpopular person. Every day, he would sit at Birla house giving bhashans, and the refugees would come and openly abuse him. Madanlal Pahwa, a Punjabi refugee involved in the plot to kill Gandhi had no links to the RSS. In any case, I have no doubt that sweets were distributed upon Gandhi`s death. This is not because of something as profound as a difference in vision, but because of Gandhi`s sell out of India, at the time of partition.

5. ``Choice of Hindu Nationalism as Indian Nationalism`` Thrust, Parry and Cut. All said and done this is where you get me.

Thee RSS claims that ``Hindu`` is just a name for the people of Hind. I personally feel that it is a very unfortunate choice of words because it will alienate non Hindu minorities I am not going to defend what I myself am not comfortable with. But like I said to HobbyTy, some things I will explain, and not defend. Similarly, the economic policies of the RSS are downright dangerous for India.

I am not a fervent chaddiwala ;) and will not defend every aspect of RSS but neither will I condemn every aspect of the organization. Unless ofcourse, events prove me wrong. There are no holy cows, not even the RSS

Stuka,

The ``roits`` of Moradabad in the 80`s were nothing more than one sided massacre of Muslim residents. ``Countering`` SIMI is a bit of a stretch.

I have seen RSS pamphlets that list hinduunity as an affiliated website. I can mail you one if you want?

Upman#194

``...everybody is trying to find common ground and live amicably, which is a more instinctive human desire than some remote religious doctrine...actually fundamental alterations in interpreting that doctrine itself (`itjehad` if you will) occur as a result of secular living, as evidenced by the string of apologies the Vatican has been issuing and indeed the near-revolutionary advice to catholics from the Pope in Delhi- `to take from indigenous systems of belief those spiritual ideas that are compatible with one`s faith`...``

Good post!

Stuka # 198:

..as much as i refute hobbyty`s allegations that india is becoming hindu chauvinist, i am aware of the danger of hindutva...and its not because of Shiv sena or Bajrang Dal or even VHP, its because of the RSS...the RSS with its aura of profundity and intellectualism and a cultivated martyrdom image is the real poison, and not some thugs which the others are...RSS seeks to impart respectability to its parochial, insidious philosophy and let the goons of bajrang dal and VHP manage the dirty tricks dept...it couches the pernicious ideas that is its basis in language of inclusiveness and high philosophy..it spreads partial lies, generalisations and a black-and-white history aimed at creating a sense of victimisation in the minds of average hindu..and this is an emotion so tempting that so much of middle-class india then turns a blind eye when they peddle outrageous ideas as was the Babri Masjid issue...and the danger is that otherwise reasonable people like you are falling for it..

..some specifics:

1/ the word hindutva was coined by `veer` Savarkar, and i`m not sure if he was a member of the RSS (he was one of the accused in the planning of Gandhi`s assassination)

2/ i dont think the VHP calls itself a political organization...actually it cannot..

3/ ``The VHP and the Bajrang Dal are NOT synonymous with RSS as far as ideology is concerned. Their vision of Hindutva is far more exclusive than that of the RSS. There have been issue based alliances between the RSS and the VHP, the Babri Masjid being case in point, but they remain distinct in ideology and outlook.``

..actually they are the same, with inter-transfered workers and organizers...its just that the RSS doesnt want to get its name sullied by the kind of work its instincts demand, so these guys get to do that job..whereas our boudhiks and chintaks will work on giving an intellectual spin to it and if its way too gone for that, completely dissociate from it...this is a trick the RSS has mastered to perfection- right from its policy of not having membership records from the time it was RSSS- which enabled it to get away when Godse murdered Gandhi..

i have a couple of Qs:

1/ if RSS is only about inclusive Hinduism, where is it that it differs from Gandhi`s Hinduism?..pl. do not tell me that the RSS now has Gandhi as an icon, Gandhi visited Nagpur etc. details...these are examples of its highly sophisticated PR that seeks to hide its essential ugliness..it is no secret how the RSS actually feels about Gandhi, so much so that one of their co-ideologues had to MURDER him!...and as Patel wrote to them at the time of their first ban `..i have CID reports with

me which show that sweets were distributed and celebrations undertaken when news of gandhiji`s assassination was received`

2/ is its stress on Hindu nationalism as Indian nationalism just a preference for words (interesting since Hindu, i think is essentially a persian word) or does it have some other motive?

...the fact remains that inspite of repeated highlights by pro-RSS columnists about how it `has survived several bans throughout its history` and `selflessly worked for earthquake relief in Gujarat` etc. spins, the bigoted nature of its conception and existence can not be erased, even if concealed...

Nasah

excellent! Now if you replace the word Islamism with secularism :

It`s much cheaper and faster to hop on the bus of Islamism with others -- than to goad, kick and ride the ``dynamic`` donkey of secularism to take you to places in the 21st entury -- a donkey is a donkey.

Is this simplified?

Khare Eesaa agur ba makka rawad

chooN beayed hanooz khur bashad

Indeed, one of the main reasons scholars repeated call for strengthened institutions in Islamia, is the realization that Islam is not institutionalized - The ideas of Soroush and Al-Ghannouchi can help focus how to incorporate values that most Muslims agree are a necessary requirement for civic society, Representative government, freedom of conscience and confession and personal liberty, within a context that a majority of Muslims will accept easily.

Now you, Hamidm, gohwardan, Zafar, et al - may be absoluteley right that these ideas are hooey - and while to do not object that those who disagree should register an objection, I do wonder how values of tolerance for differing opinions seem not to have taken hold amongst our ``secular`` zealots? What manner of secularism is this that does not tolerate differing ideas? That will not acknowledge the context within which the ideas of Soroush and Al-Ghannouchi may find a following?

Kai entor aziz - Ke khar ham shodeem? Kaafe na boud: Bigot, Hypocrite, shameless? Khar ham shodeem? Alhamdu lilah, ke shodeh eem Khar e khodah.

Amigo, you give us no chance, you recognize not our sincerety, you reject our quest for meaning, our scholarship and intellect, our understanding of the world and the Divine - and then accuse us of bigotry? The least I think persons whose views differ can do is to at least tolerate each others point of view. Don`t you agree?

Wow, what a well written short story that is. I can completely understand and felt as though I was a part of the story as it unraveled. The paralles between Pakistan and the US is amazing but there is some truth to you.

I will be looking forwards to more stories from you!

Dear Hobbyty:

If I may simplify the discussion.

It`s much cheaper and faster to hop on the bus of secularism with others -- than to goad, kick and ride the ``dynamic`` donkey of Islamism to take you to places in the 21st entury -- despite Saroush and Al Ganoushi intellectual gymnastics -- ie hogwash -- a donkey is a donkey.

Khare Eesaa agur ba makka rawad

chooN beayed hanooz khur bashad

HobbyTy / Govardhan/ Anyone else who is interested:

Hindutva is a bandwagon that many are jumping on. Therefore, it would be unfair for you to pick up a quote from any random website and present it as a ``Postion of Hindutva``.

I have seen a website called HinduUnity, which claims to speak for Hindutva, and it is run by a 30 year old from Queens. You do my nation and religion a great disservice, if you are going to take that as a synonym of Hindutva.

The casual observer makes the mistake of tying in 4 Seperate organizations as one with a common agenda. The 4 organizations are

1. Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

2. Vishwa Hindu Parishad

3. Bajrang Dal

4. Shiv Sena

Out of the 4 above mentioned, the Shiv Sena is completely seperate. The RSS is the original and only proponent of Hindutva as a nationalist and cultural ideology. The BJP and its earlier incarnation, the BJS (Bharatiya Jan Sangh) are the political wings of the RSS. Since the RSS is non-political, the BJP gets its ideological moorings from the RSS. However, as you may be aware if you keep up with current events in India, the BJP cannot take RSS support for granted. The difference in economic policy is one example of the RSS and BJP adopting varied policies. Vajpayee, Advani, Malkani, Govindacharya are all Swayamsevaks. The RSS was banned multiple times by the Congress government, because of its association with Veer Savarkar, Godse etc. But it has always survived. There is no equivilant organization of the RSS in the world, because it is Non Political, Nationalist and Inclusive. Originally, it was modelled on the basis of the Italian Black Shirts, but was modified for Indian requirements.

The VHP and its youth wing, the Bajrang Dal are relatively late entrants. Unlike the RSS, the VHP is a religious and a political orgainzation. In that sense, it is similar to the JUI of Pakistan. The Bajrang Dal is the Youth based wing of the VHP and was originally based on urban gang lines. It came into being to counter the Muslim Adam Sena and SIMI after the riots in Moradabad, in 1980. Due to political patronage it has become a large organization.

The VHP and the Bajrang Dal are NOT synonymous with RSS as far as ideology is concerned. Their vision of Hindutva is far more exclusive than that of the RSS. There have been issue based alliances between the RSS and the VHP, the Babri Masjid being case in point, but they remain distinct in ideology and outlook.

The Shiv Sena is a criminal enterprise masquerading as a political movement. Bal Thackery and his son Udhav and Nephew Raj Thackeray are the desi versions of Saddam and his son Udai. Originally a Marathi Chauvinist party, with anti-south Indian overtones, it became Anti Muslim, only to get votes. In the Mumbai riots of 1991-92, Muslim business houses like Dawood Shoes etc paid major money to the Shiv Sena and were spared, whereas Hindus from UP and Bihar had their chawls destroyed. A clear cut example of ideology being a poor second to money.

As far as quotes are concerned, yes I will be happy to explain anything that an RSS ideologue has said. The VHP and Bajrang Dal, I do not agree with their vision and secondly, they are not the ones in power. The federal funding of education you talk about has nothing to do with the VHP and Bajrang Dal. The Shiv Sena, well that`s like my asking you to explain the Karachi underworld.

Hoe this helps...

Upman, Gohwardan, Zafar

Upman Gohwardan

You pose the questions, You chose the content of the answers! You summarize the answers!, you come to conclusions not warranted by the answers - And you are fair and open to inquiry? - You Indian nationalist, sorry, secularist are a very fair bunch.

Where is my champion, Zafar - He of ethical responsibility? Where is Dehko na Neptune, Dehko?

With marxists and so called ``secularists`` - they seem to have no ethics. That is just a club to use against those of us who seek to find answers in our religious faiths. That in itself is anathema, or as my champion says, Hateful.

Upman, Hindutva is political ideology. My beef with it is very specific. It relates to the creation of a false history and the the hostility within that history to Islam and the resulting hostility towards Muslims. I am least concerned about any other aspect. If it unites Indians , if it instills them with pride - great - I question why does it have to be at the expense of Islam and Muslims - which is of course a bigotted, hyporitical, shameless, etc position, yes, I know.

``Secularists`` amongst will have to confront these ideas by themselves - Afterall the Hindutvavadis have their own ideas about secularists - we both know that, don`t we?

On why secularism is superior - accomodation of all religions - that sounds fair but which religion has abdicated tolerance? - but You and I both know that tolerance is something that is missing in India - before you scoop up the mud in both fists - Yes it is a problem in Pakistan - but remember the topic of the conversation was ideas hostile to Islam and Muslims within Hindutva ideology - If you were to argue that even more backward and hostile ideas have taken hold in section of Pakistani society - I would agree - all Chowk would agree, a majority of Pakistanis would agree.

On his Holiness, The Papa - being tied at the stake and the notion that Catholicism is driven by India centric views - Wake up! grow up!

The important question to pose is why are Indians (generally Hindus) in such large numbers open to the message of conversion? Your statement about the advice given to His Holiness should be viewed in the light of how the Church can best make in roads in a highly nationalistic and hostic atmosphere.

Indians are proud of their secularism - congratulations. Now, how many Indians know what that means? IS that why Hindutva ideology has gained ground? Before you object - Yes there are some Indians who understand that secularism may provide an more elaritarian society - but the question remains, how will an Egalitarian society evolve if notions hostile to another section of society are being spread within that society?

You see Upman, secularism is itself a religion and in India, it is a intolerant religion - especially the Indian version - The Indian version is all about Hindu nationalism - will this change if Congress were in power - I don`t believe it will - but it may change, it certainly will not change as long as the BJP and it`s ideological allies are in power. Indian secularism will brook no opposition from any quarter, it will not acknowledge that others have the right to organize themselves according to ideas they find as inspirational - that is the core of the hostility of so many ``secular`` Indians to the idea of Pakistan. It is offensive to them that anyone else will choose to organize themselves in ways different from those that the Indian secularist has prescribed.

Hobbyty

Try to understand what upman7626 193 is saying. If someone asked RSS VHP Shiv Sena ideologues about what you acuse them of, they will give answers *identical * to ones you gave. They also believe they are only doing good for their community. They will protest strongly the charge that they are against Muslims or Christians and other minorities.

Try to understand similarity between you and them. Get away from religious bigotry. No matter how subtle, it smells very bad. It will has not and will not help muslims. It has not and will not help others. It has not and will not help Pakistan.

Dont hide behind the excuse that your religion requires you to be a bigot. I have been reading tahmed and some others. They are good muslims and not bigots. Dont spread your poison using nationalistic emotional tricks or big words please. Only harm will come from that.

I will be out for some days. Meet everyone later.

upman # 193

........ now, that was one of the best posts i have ever read on this subject ....... i wonder how the brain-dead and the brain-washed will respond ...... and yes, i mean to be cruel and offensive to those who believe in the superiority of one faith over another because their god tells them so ......one must not pander to the these forces of obscurantism and silliness just to be nice ...... i can assure you that once they get into power and establish the rule of god on earth, they won`t be very nice to people who want to pray standing up or want ribs for dinner - i, at least, have no desire to be burned at the stake or stretched on the rack ........

hobbyty # 185:

..you have qualified each of your Nos to Gwdhn`s Qs with a long para which essentially says yes...semantics and fluidity of the meaning of language has let you get away with it...and guess what, ask any of the Hindutva dime-a-dozen intellectuals floating around whether they would answer Yes or No- they`d come up with the exact same response: No, but..and then a long passage of explanation...

..your paragraph at the end is most interesting..i can understand where you are coming from- i`ve associated with the fringes of evangelical christianity (whose regular jargon is `continents of darkness` `oil-rich and God poor` etc. which you will know is akin to islamists of the unrefined variety)...and i`ll tell you why secularism is better than such X`ianity i knew, which would also be applicable to Islamism and Hindutva (as opposed to Islam and Hinduism)...secularism, even its aggressive variety -fascist as you call it- is aggressive about demanding that no set of belief be allowed to be considered superior to another and thus be given equal treatment with others...yes, you will find situations when such a secularist will speak against particular religions- its when these religions or their agents claim to be the final and only truth..

..and now this brings us to a delicate situation- there are very many religions, as you know, which claim to be the only and final truth...how would secularism live with such concepts?...well thats where the importance of separation of church and state come in..i may believe to my dying day that there is no salvation outside of Jesus, but if a state allows that to be a superior truth, then that would make life very uncomfortable to minorities in such a state...however the state could allow such believers to maintain their beliefs without according it priority to the several others, and stress the inclusive aspects of this religion so that a civil society with other religions can function...in one sense its a balancing act, but again not really because the rigid exclusiveness in religions is something not many communities want to stress constantly in a multi-cultural society...everybody is trying to find common ground and live amicably, which is a more instinctive human desire than some remote religious doctrine...actually fundamental alterations in interpreting that doctrine itself (`itjehad` if you will) occur as a result of secular living, as evidenced by the string of apologies the Vatican has been issuing and indeed the near-revolutionary advice to catholics from the Pope in Delhi- `to take from indigenous systems of belief those spiritual ideas that are compatible with one`s faith`...something for which good ol` john Paul would have been burnt at the stake a few hundred years ago (incidentally,the Pope wanting to address an Asian Bishops Conference, and refused by most countries including China and Sri Lanka was allowed in BJP-ruled India, not because of any magnanimity of the BJP but beacause of the secular nature of Indian public life, where a refusal would have created a storm of protests)

``That is to say that the ideas of ``secular``, have been drafted into the service of nationalism.``

..is it so difficult for you to appreciate that secularism, alongwith egalitarian-ising participatory democracy, was the cornerstone on which the gandhi-led modern indian nationalism was conceived...hard to digest i know, given the concept of pakistan..i too wouldnt have believed it had i been brought up on a diet of PTV `experts` who constantly drum down that indian secularism is `another devious bania trick`..please realize that the concept of secularism is something most indians are proud of, justifiably so consisdering the corner of the world we live in..

(and ylh, before you jump in with how gandhis mahatma-maulana-pandit etc. nexus and secularism are antagonistic concepts, let me repeat for the umpteenth time that intelligent interactors here are using the `equitable treatment of all religions` interpretation of secularism and not some ancient `state against church` concept)

Tahmed

Like you I found the French very depressing - but ofcourse that was the intention of the style - I did love Camus - I refer to him in my first post on this board ``Patrice without Lucienne`` - Majid`s alienation from himself reminds of Patrice in some ways - but even as Patrice is aware, Majid is not.

Styka I apprciate the effort but tell me, when discussing Hinduta, why not quote from what they say - or would you rather that I put quotes from their websites as what they say?

Hobbyty

Thank you. Your answers are -

1. Dont you use the bogey of western domination as VHP, RSS, SHIV SENA people do?

No, I dont but Hindutva vadis do.

2. Dont you promote a us and them thinking between Muslims and others, just like like VHP, RSS, SHIV SENA people do?

No, I dont but Hindutva vadis do.

3. Dont you use your interpretation of history to appeal to Muslims young peoples emotions, just like like VHP, RSS, SHIV SENA people appeal to Hindus young peoples emotions?

No, I dont but Hindutva vadis do.

4. Dont you paint a picture of Muslims being annhilated by non muslims, just like like VHP, Hindus being annhilated by Muslims?

No, I dont but Hindutva vadis do.

Because all here your past interacts, because you are interacting even now, the truth of your answers can be checked objectively.

All can check how truthful Hobbyty has been. I prefer not read all his past interacts by myself. We cant call him Hindutva vadi carbon copy if he is telling the truth. We should take his answers one by one.

Difference between Hindutva vadis and Hobbyty -

Number one: Hobbyty does not use the bogey of western domination as VHP, RSS, SHIV SENA people do.

Anyone like check this first answer?

hobbyty #185 I have not read Kierkegaard, although I hasten to add that I have heard about him and I hope I have spelled his name right earlier in this sentence otherwise there go whatever tiny claims to scholarship I may have :-)

I was in fact once interested in existentialists of the French kind (Camus and Sartre), and enjoyed some of their works but their philosophy has always seemed a bit rootless and empty to me. The true beauty of Islam as I see is in the fundamentals: On the one hand we are part of a bigger scheme of things, and yet as individuals are beholden to no man and beholden only to our own intellect and our own senses. I suppose it is the latter part (being beholden to no man) that leads you to compare Islam to existentialist philosophy (at least as I understand the two). But add the first part (being part of a bigger scheme of things) and you have the basis for a much fuller life than existentialism alone would provide. Any views?

HobbyTy:

Okay, I am a believer in some aspects of Hindutva and I disagree on other aspects. I will try and play the devil`s advocate here. Let me be clear at the outset. There are some positions on Hindutva that I will explain but not defend, because I don`t agree myself.

First and Foremost, Hindutva is a political and not a religious agenda. It is inherently inclusive, and not exclusive. Religion and nationalism are not synonymous. Therein lies the biggest difference between RSS and Islamic organizations. The RSS wants to be the voice of all Indians, regardless of religion, and not all Hindus worldwide. The Hare Krishnas are not our concern. Pan Islamic organizations cut across national lines.

Regarding your specific queries:

1. The construction of a false history - the projection on a continous 5000 year history. There is no doubt that the history of civilization in India is even longer, but it is not the case that the history of Indian/Hindu civilization is one long unbroken rcord.

The history of India is indeed continuous. There have been events/invasions, and yes, breaks in the rule of specific dynasties. But, the history of the geographic sub-continent has been continuous. If you are talking about Hindu rule, Hindutva certainly does not suggest that the Hindus have ruled over India continuously. There have been foreign invasions, the Greeks, the Turks, Mughals and the English have all invaded India. I would like to point out here the difference between rule and civilzation. Just as the Romans ruled over Judea, but the underlying civilaztion remained Judean with Roman overtones, similarly the civilization of present day India retained a continuous Hindu structure even though the rulers may have changed.

2. The Ideology that suggests India was a whole which Islam and the Muslim did break apart.

India was never whole as modern nation state. But neither was Germany, Italy, or for that matter the United Kingdom. The German state came into being in tle late 19th century, and India came into being in 1947. A difference at best of a 100 years. However, inspite of never being a united Modern state, Hind was always considered a distinct geographic entity. Was China ever considered a part of Hind? No Was Iran ever considered a part of Hind? No. Even though the borders of Hind were not demarcated on the ground, a seperate geographic entity called Hind existed. This was succeeded by two modern nation states, India and Pakistan. I would remind you here that Jinnah himself stated that India consisted of 2 distinct nations, Hindu and Muslim. It was the Muslim League that chose to define nationalism by religion, and not culture, language or geographic unit, not us. We believed, and continue to believe that religion cannot and does not define nationalism. Therefore, the Hindutwavadi does not believe that it was Islam that rent India asunder, but its political re-incarnation, the Muslim League that did it. Now, the successor nation of Hind is India. The Muslims of India have CHOSEN to reject religion as a definition of nationality, and are therefore as Indian as Hindus. They are still Muslims, but that is their religion and not their nationality. Just because Pakistan has chosen religion as a definition of nationalism, does not mean we do the same. I imply no crticism of the choice your country has made, but just reaffirm our country`s right to forge our own path.

3a. The notion that the experience of Islam in India is one of slavery.

If you reject poltical correctness, you will see for yourself that Islam was spread by the sword and not by missionaries. If the ruling and the ruled are defined by religion, then yes for the ruled it is an experience of slavery. However, a distinction has to be made here between Islam and Mughals. Again, you have paraphrased this statement from your perspective. Islam is incidental. It is just a religion. But, Hind was enslaved by the Turks (slave kings) and then the Mughals. The Sultans of Delhi, Babar to Aurangzeb,Muhammad Ghor, these were not Indians. They were Turks or Afghans who enslaved India. They happened to be Muslim. The British too enslaved India, and they happened to be christian. If you substitute Islam by Mughal or Turk or English than yes your statement is correct.

3b. The notion that the Muslim is the enemy of India and must accept the undoing of Islamic history in India.

The Muslims who advocate separatism are the enemies of India. Muslims who support Pakistan over India are enemies of India. How are we supposed to undo History?

4. The promotion of these ideas through national federally funded education.

Educational research has always been federally funded. How come nobody raised these questions when the socialists were propagating their ideas through federally funded education?

STUKA

Hobbyty, please answer Gowardhan`s questions.

hobbyty:

Keep your horrible pointy paki nose out of Indian affairs. Pakis have exterminated all minorities in your country. Repent for the murder of 3 million Bengalis. You have no right to speak on anyones behalf except your own. Your country persecutes, decapitates and shoots dead ahmadiyas, shias, hindus and christians. Attend to your own problems. Your own interpratation of history is as skewed as that of the RSS/VHP people who are obsessed with. Whinge whine and moan. You have been skinned alive in debates on this forum. Take your pompous flatulent clap trap elsewhere. You are the Shahen-Shah of dispossesed Moghuls. Mind your own goddamn business.

Zafar, Gohwardan, Tahmed

Zafar:

I did not set up Gohwardan or anybody else for this debate, rather it is he, who has suggested that I am no different that VHP, RSS etc and asks that refute this charge. I was happy discussing sex - Notice I am not making the charge that he or anyone with whom I have converesed is a hindutva ideologue. Indeed Gohwardan is unique in that he has stated that he totally rejects ideas within Hindutva ideology that are designed to offer offense. My beef with Hindutva is specifically with the creation of a false history and the role of Islam and Muslims within that world view. Gohwardan put the charge to me, and I am only answering his questions.

As to whether I learned something or not? Yes, I did. Recall my contention that Pakistan will be voice for Muslims in India - to a degree this is true, but from reading your posts with devkant and also Stuka and Narain`s I do now realize why my position was objectionable to you and others, and that my position needs to rethought, it`s basic assumption reexamined.

Your posts with Devkant reveal a pride, an ownership of your hertiage and citizenship that I had not valued, indeed was not sensitized to the depth of that sentiment. I thought that my initial insensitivity to your objection had put you in a uncomfortable position where you had to prove your nationalistic sense to other Indians - this realization was shattered when I read some of your other interactions (devkant). To that degree, yes I can say I have learned something important about the depth of pride and ownership, some Muslim Indians feel. But ofcourse many others do not (Kashmiri and non-secularized Muslims)and indeed the notion that Pakistan shall have a voice for Muslims in India deserves a rethink, a reexamination of some of the basic assumptions that go towards formulating such a position.

Let me also say, that I remain astonished by the degree of defensiveness by some, to the idea that the propagation of anti Islamic ideas taking place within present indian society. I am astonished that so few have come forward, at least Gohwardan has, to condemn such ideas - to ask that they be reexamined. Others have suggested that such ideas are against the ``secular`` values of the Indian State - I have no position clear position with regard to that and I suggest that this is a meaningless as the focus is not the secular or not character of the state but the diffusion of ideas hostile to the history, role and religion of the muslim in India.

Yet others suggest that I, who brought this in to discussion am the very same as the VHP, RSS, etc. This seems to be to be blaming the messenger for the content of the message. It seems to me that too few value anything other than ``secular``, honest inquiry, diversity of opinion and an intellectual openness are integral, whether we ascribe to secular or sectarian world views. But ofcourse, I will answer this charge and therfore the following:

Gohwardan

in all of my posts to you have I ever said you were stupid? have I not always tried to engage you? have I not pointed out to you about ``vicious``? Obviously, like myself you are here to connect. Consider, have you connected? What if I had treated you in the same manner that you had treated me? Do you usually connect by calling people names? You are a grown man and you must come up with answer you feel comfortable with - but I do request you consider your purpose. If I understand you correctly you feel that I am a menace, a pompous, hypocrite, bigot, etc - Have you considered how such a response from you makes you look or what it says about the defensiveness and hurt with which you respond to me personally and not the position? Grown men generally do not behave with others in such a way - do consider - Ok, now you want me to answer charges -

Apparently I have not provided you the answers you seek and I will try again in a more clear and direct way - BUT I have a request: I should like you to me give me a detailed input on the Robin Wright article and to what and why do you feel you disagree with everything in it - deal?

I don`t want you to be convinced or give up any position but rather that you understand mine, I will try and keep my answers short but if I do, how will you be able to distinguish whether I am a carbon copy of Hindutva ideology? - but OK, not to be concerned, I will happily set myself up - sooner or later you will realize what`s what :

1. I do not use Western domination as a bogey - I pointed out that VHP, RSS etc., do. But this too vague a question - Muslims, Hindus, Pakistanis, Indians have a history with the West. For general purposes, this history is a mix of good and bad, depending on one`s perspective. Do Western interest always coincide with those of Pakistan, India or Muslims or Hindus - no they do not. I feel comforatble saying that where these interests intersect we should cooperate, where they do not we should seek to persuade. If confrontation beomes inevitable, it`s down side must be minimized. Everybody realizes that the West is zealous in the promotion of what it considers it`s values, to non-Western countries and civilizations. I contend that while not all countries and civilizations have the resources of the West to promote and project their values, they do have similar compulsions and should exercise these.

2. No, I do not promote a ``Us versus Them`` thinking. Quite the opposite. But I acknowledge it`s existence, that is when I am confronted with that kind of thinking. When confronted by a ``us versus them`` thinking, I do suggest that we should pay back in the same coin. I do not suggest that Muslims societies should be a door mat either, We should avoid confrontation if possible, but that does not mean not asserting what we hold as our values, our interests. As Pakistan is a more than 95% Muslim country and as Islam is a universal religion, Pakistani and Muslim interests have a multiplicity of resonance within communities in the world and not just the sub-continent. That is to say that Pakistani Muslims are connected by faith to peoples around the world and I most definitely favor any reasonable suggestions that would bring Muslims in all countries closer to one another, especially in faith. I urge you to again review the article to better understand where I am coming from. I make the point that Muslim societies by and large have become ossified, that our ethics no longer support our morality - that we do not live our faith - that our faith is not dead, set of dos` and Donts` - that we live in environments where we are confronted by plurality of every kind and with questions that conservative interpretations refuse to acknowledge and that they do promote an obscuritanist world view. Ijtehad, Ijma and Shura are destined to win the day - even as the day is not yet close - In essence, this point of view seeks to value freedom of conscience, confession and personal liberty. too many on these boards have a reflexive reaction to the political Islam, yet such reactions tend not to promote dialogue. M