India’s Communal Gamble

Lajwanti,

One would think you were a monstrous parody, if we hadn`t already read your past illuminations...I even started to ask why you assume that I ``eat pork, drink alcohol and take drugs``, but then I thought, wait a minute, why am I falling into this illogical and shameless trap, or this automatic frame of reference? I guess this is how the game works...

Zafar

“I do not understand the difference between subjective and objective secularism as you use these terms in your post. Please explain”

Below is a more complete quote and is the crux of the argument:

“Secularism is an example of modernization (a response to increasing complexity), in which differentiation of religion from economic and political institutions. THIS DIFFERNTIATION CAN ALSO APPLY TO THE SEPERATIONOF RELIGION FROM CULTURE AND CONSCIENCE. Therefore there can be two meaning of secularism or alternately we can view it as a dichotomy of Objective versus Subjective secularism. On a psychological and cultural level, what was once sacred both in the psychological and in the cultural sense is now open to the profane.”

Zafar, Objective secularism is the differentiation of institutions (Church from State) – here the institutions are separated, it does not speak to, or apply a value to, or have an opinion about religion other than it is an institution separated from the institutions of governance, or rather, government.

Within The realm of Subjective secularism, you have profanation, resulting in the diminishment of religion as a cultural and moral force. Subjective secularism acts to decimate religion, not by demystifying it or rationalizing it, but by infiltrating the sacred psycho-social terrain in the individual conscience and within society as a whole.

Consider your statement about the reawakening, revival: You question whether it was the right thing to do or happen. In other words, Subjective secularism gives to itself the right to decide the validity of individual conscience. You begin with the presumption that religious awakening/revival has a purpose other than what the adherent has judged to be true or correct for that adherent’s conscience. Your analysis begins with “look at the results”, which you then explain – as opposed to “look at the reason for the revival”, that is to say the individual conscience. “Opium of the masses”? really? well, why then is religion so strong in the US? Moreover, what does such an attitude say about the role of the individual conscience? Do people not ask “Who am I? “What does my life mean?” “Am I part of some greater design?” – Now, this is for the individual conscience to decide, not for those who reject the very validity of that conscience. It is the opposite of tolerance; It appropriates a civic morality that denies to any other the right to an individual conscience. The key lies in whether or not one is willing to acknowledge that peoples practice their faith, because they need the spiritual uplift of their faith, after all, what happened to Tolerance being the foundation of civil society?

Now look at your last statement: “The revival of religiously based identities is a reaction to change – fear of change if you will.”

OK, so Orthodox Christians and Muslims, who Churches and Masajid were called “Museums of dead religions”, now free from persecution for practicing their faith, fear this change and seek a return to persecution by practicing their faith? Again, notice in this statement, the complete dismissal of individuals free choice to practice their faith. In troubled times, the observation is that people tend to their faith, or rediscover their faith, in degrees. The question to ask is what does this mean? In uncertainty, they seek the comfort of their faith? OK, that’s one answer, but why would anyone want to assign a value judgement to such a response? To what next will the Subjective secularists take objection to and which other groups of persons will they make decisions for?

Dost Mittar also approaches this from this line of non-reasoning and suggests that if only the idea of secularism takes hold, society will benefit. Again, I have to use the word, shallow. I don’t mean any personal insult, but suggest that it has not been taken in to account that to arrive at secularism, we must lay it’s foundation with the principles of tolerance, which we have justified as deriving from the values of pluralism. Secularism without tolerance is the Stateism we witnessed in Soviet days. Secularism without tolerance is an immorality, a profanation of morality.

I seriously hope you will consider these arguments very seriously and put special emphasis on the meaning of a Democracy, civil and human rights and what does tolerance mean, how do we arrive at it, why is it the necessary ingredient. Please consider the authors I had mentioned and just to kind of round out the argument, you may consider, “Opium of the Intellectuals”

re: sigalph235 # 296

sigalph235,

Advancement opportunties for Hindus in Pakistan are not as completely blocked as you fear. Why, just recently another Hindu married lady was forcibly promoted to the coveted rank of a she- wadera (granted, one of many she-waderas in the household - so her reign couldn`t be absolute). In this case, mercifully, the poor husband was dead (and gone to hell - asif naqshbandi has ruled out paradise for us poor Hindus :))

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/today/editor/opi2.htm

Reply Dost-Mittar, Sadna, Soysauce # 269

Re: UCC

I agree that impetus for change has to come from the group most affected – Muslim women in India. I agree that there’s no organisation made up of them which has taken a stand on this.

In some ways the law makes it easy for Muslims to opt for the standard civil code without fuss – all people have to do is register with the authorities and standard family law applies to them (at least so far as inheritance goes – don’t know how this affects divorce or custody of children however). This is good, in that people can access it easily, but also reduces the pressure for change. Individuals CAN improve their own circumstances in this manner without challenging the fact of Muslim personal law being applied selectively in India.

Soysauce: “Muslim inheritance laws tend(ed?) to be better than hindu laws when it comes to women, for example.”

Perhaps traditionally, but not when you compare Muslim personal law with Reformed Hindu Law. (proper name?)

“To some extent you can pass laws (assuming they are not too controversial) and hope that society`s attitudes change over time to lend weight to those laws. In many cases tho there has to be a willingness in the society to change and reform before there can be laws that solidify those changes.”

I don’t agree – I think in this case the law has to change, and then disadvanteged groups (like women) empowered to demand their legal rights. Social engineering fueled at least partly by legislation? Perhaps…where’s a philosopher king when you need one?

“I believe, having heard of a few among relatives and acquaintances, that dowry deaths have indeed increased. Laws haven`t helped to any noticeable extent and they won`t until society really, really sees dowry deaths as a scourge that must go.”

I’m not sure that this doesn’t indicate that they are being reported more. Currently if a woman dies within seven years of marriage her death is investigated as possible murder. Now this law isn’t worth the paper it’s written on unless these investigations take place properly (and I don’t want to comment on how well these investigations are carried out across the country)…but the fact remains that there is now a ward in Tihar Jail where Mothers In Law convicted of involvement in Dowry Deaths are locked up. Without the law, these people would not have been punished for their crime, and other potential criminals of this ilk would not get the message that this is against the law and you can go to jail for it.

“…good laws could only lull us into thinking that we have done something.”

True. We need good laws AND activism.

Zafar

Reply Harimau # 284

Harimau

Thank you for your response. I now do have a better idea of where you are coming from, and truly – you don’t have to convince me of the good things about living in a secular democracy. I agree that conditions for individuals to better their circumstances without disadvantaging others are best in these circumstances. Let me put down what issues remain for me (without khunnas, unlike last time).

When anybody uses terms like “the Muslims” the implication is that all Muslims have ONE point of view and a one, separate, set of interests. This is exactly the attitude which saw India divided and the creation of Pakistan. (I am not rearguing the case against TNT – no point, Pakistan now exists – but the continuation of that idea in India is against the essence of the country. Muslims and Hindus in India largely do NOT have different interests – what is good for one is generally good for the other, essentially empty issues like masjids and temples aside.)

[“you know enough that none of my diatribes are aimed at anyone but the obscurantists among ``the Muslims``.]

Fair enough. But by ceding the label to them you are giving them credit for more influence than they are due, and reducing the ability of more Moderate people to speak and be heard as Muslims (which would be a good thing). There are many Indian Muslims who participate fully in the life of the nation. For every Bukhari there is a Shabana Azmi. Not taking this into account, even when polemicising (?) is similar to Chowkistadors from Pakistan assuming that every Hindu Chowkistador is a hard core believer in caste and the saffronisation of India (whatever that means) at the minorities’ expense, and perhaps even panders to that misconception.

[“I can also see that a lower-middleclass or poor Indian Muslim probably has more grievances than a rich or upper-middleclass Muslim but then so does a Hindu or Christian in similar socio-economic circumstances, a fact that seems to escape the attention of our Pakistani cousins.”]

Agreed, economic status is THE most important determinant of options in India. But gender and descent are also factors, albeit hopefully declining in importance. We can’t discount them, and pretending that they are not relevant at all doesn’t convince people one debates with, but only undermines one’s own argument. Sahi?

Regards

Zafar

Reply Veeresh # 292

“Ghazni & Salahuddin will have to look elsewhere. Maybe Heera Mandi?”

Abh Heera Mandi ko aise libel karne se kya faida? Unhon ne aap ka kya bigada?

urstruly,

u r right. the baboons need a mahmood ghaznavi... judging the their reactions, the dhotis are beginning to get wet already with fear. cowardly bride burning thugs. maybe this time mahmood will plant enough seeds so the baboons can evolve to neanderthals...

dost-mittar #269
``I do not see any similar strong leadership in the Indian Muslim community at the present time.``

The issue of UCC has dealt with almost like an `ultimatum` in the past few years. IMO, such a confrontationist approach, esp when the Ayodhya issue is being kept alive, (in addition to BJP being in power and the consequent visibility of VHP/RSS/BD/etc) is not providing any space for `moderates` in either community in these issues.

IMO, additionally, Indian Muslims are having to live down Partition(unfortunately), and cannot speak/organize with all the vigor required without being viewed suspiciously by Hindus. There is even resistance to an all India Muslim party. I have not understood why, I think thats something which is really needed. The author is right, IMO in this regard.

harimau #270
Do you see the contradiction here?
``Our constitution permits everyone who was born in India after 1947, and those who were born before but have not renounced Indian citizenship, the right to live as a free citizen. I am not doing anybody any favor by letting them live in India. It is their constitutional right and I will defend that right.``

``Well, in that case, is it too much to ask you and your cohorts not to talk about the Babri Masjid? Or, since the criminals are still alive, it is an issue that you can raise whenever you want?``

The Constitution grants not only right to live as a free citizen(which as you rightly say, we have to defend), but also grants the right to due process of law. Demolishing a disputed mosque by a mob is not due process of law. Either we accept the whole hog with the Constitutional principles after 1947 or we don`t. We cannot pick and choose.

re: alphaHussain # 280

Alpha,

Not very far at all. Are you on Balda road?

re: Banjara # 277

You know what, this is really interesting.

English is

German ist

Persian hast (ast)

Sanskrit asti

creepy, don`t you think?

re urstruly

``For a Muslim in India there is no judge, no jury, no conscience, no mercy, no law but the law of the gun.

Judge A M Ahmadi, former Chief Justice of ``Hindu`` India, must have been a vegetable-eating and cow-worshipping Brahmin who cared for the rule of the gun for Muslims. But he can always migrate to Pakistan where his conscience will be salved. After all, isn`t Pakistan the place where Hindus are treated no different than their Muslim brtheren and their properties and honor protected to the fullest extent of the feudal law? Why, wasn`t there a Hindu who became the President of Pakistan too long ago? Prime Minister? Chief Justice? Federal Minister? Speaker of Parliament? AMbassador? No?

Dude, this is all a media conspiracy to paint Pakistan as a theocratic state which discriminates against Hindus!

InYourMouth,

Why are you so desperate? That dirty tush is getting itchy?

Dumbo, I would much rather have Muslims friends than Hindu morons like you.

Zafar Al Talib #287:

Great post. You, Hamidm and Veeresh are the best on this site. OK even Ustruly many times and Maulana Asif Naqshbandi - Did you read his prayer to Allah on this thread. Allah tumhaare mehboobo ko bachao, Aurungzeb ki shaan waapas Lao, Timur ki tarah humey raaj karney do --- the poor soul did all on behalf of Indian Muslims like you and you dont even have a word to say on that?

BTW, Ghauri, Ghaznavi (plunderers, looters and rapists of Urstruly`s Punjab and also his heroes) have always been Pakistani heroes. Now even this langda Taimur ?

Also, you mentioned somewhere that you look like Turks..Now I am a big fan of Turks(actually all Mediterranean people)... So before you get it wrong, would you happen to have a daughter between 20 and 25 who shares your looks and ofcourse your wit?

Later,

Satyavadi

PS: Let me know if you need more details about myself and contacts for ``poochh-taachh``.

Re: Asif Naq

``Ya Allah apne Mahboob kay waastay Hindustaan kay mazloom aur majboor MusulmaanoN ko, jo kal tak taaj pehne huwe thay, aaj ki tawq-e-ghulaami se nijaat day. Aur dobaarah aulaad e Mahmood o Iltamush o jaan-nisaaraan e Babur o Aurangzeb o Timur ko takht-nasheen hone ki tawfeeq ataa farmaa de.

Ya Allah unke bachche bachche mein woh jazbaa paida karday ke woh phir apne azeem ush-shaan abaa o ajdaad ki yaadein taazah kardein.``

Dude, you`re one psychotic mofo

urstruly # 266 . . . I dont know about anybody else, Muslim or Hindu, but you are one mianji dude who would get a job as a scriptwriter in Bollywood immdtly . . . kyaa pathos, kyaa imagination . . . sorry I have tears in my eyes as I got to go take a morning walk to listen to the midday qawwalis at Nizamudin about kilometres from my home and check out the (Muslim) predicaments there . . . oh yes, seats and berths on the Kalka Mail are all sold out and that is SO anti-Muslim ofcourse . . . poor guys, they have to travel in crowded buses, more discrimination.

Urstruly, please please remember: Pakistan does NOT have a copyright on Muslims. Pakistan is NOT the Muslim saviour state.

India is what it is, and it will improve, and the Muslims and Hindus and Siksh and Christians amd Jews and Jains and etcetc will improve with it.

Ghazni & Salahuddin will have to look elsewhere. Maybe Heera Mandi?

Abbe Stukia

Bapu is m.ale and other male4 can threaten him like two steag fighting over female doe in’; jungle. But man cannpot argue with Lajwanti bevcaujse ladies so man`s izzat becomes badnaami if raise hand;s against the/M;. SAMJHA? THEY CAN SAUY PLAIN TRUJTHS WHAT BAPUY CANNOT SAY!!!!

Wheat is youR IZZAT IF ARGUE4 WITH THEM, hain?????!!!!!! Do you wear CHOOORIES AND M.AHNDI LIKE MADONNA?????

Don’t talk,to Bapu if you want Lajwanti to be quj,iet. Bapu is weak, hE IS NOT IHN CONTROL!!!! AND OTHER ALS,O CORRUPTE3D.!!!!!!!n Ask nme nicely lik.e gentleman if you want, but I advice; you stay out of, women’s disagreement or;; you are like ;Americans in Afghahnjstan stuck; in quagmere.

Amnd Samina

Don’t evemn say words like hijabn withy DIRTY MOUTH TH,AT EATS PORK DRINK ALCOHOL AND TAKING DURGS!!!!!!! all a big haram and no ,no in Islam – Firsty study mazhab properly thEN COME AND TAL;K OK Donb’t preternd to; know anything, we can all see your kafir hart

And don’t try to hide behind Frangi or Stuk;qa tHIS TIME!!!!!! AREH YOU AFRAID OFE PEOPLE HEARING BLA;CK, TRUTH ABOUT YHOURSELF????!!!!!!!