India’s Communal Gamble

Shahid:

You are seeing things more than there is. But it`s futile to blame you. Because if you are going to magnify the problems and live under it, you are bound to see only dark clouds and doom.

Both Hindus and Muslims carry the burden of history and it shows in the way both the communities react when confronted with difficult questions. The riot situation is not as one-sided as you would have us believe. Do you think absence of police would lead to less violence (riots)? Don`t you think police WILL resort to firing if the protesters turn violent( I don`t deny recent accusations though)? Why is it that some of the most riot prone areas have significant Muslim population?Ahmedabad, Kanpur, Hyderabad or Kashmir for that matter. If hindus and our police are really out to exterminate Muslims, we should be having killings in almost every town and every state in India. I agree we are not even close to being a tolerant society. And secularism that we keep chanting is a farce. But that there is a huge population out there eager to embrace secularism is also true. We must recognise that there exist problems between the two communities. And Bajrang Dal,VHP,SIMI are all there to play on such differences. Sooner we accept the problems, easier it will be to address the difficulties . Agreed our society is changing and there will be an eventual confrontation with fundamentalists (of whom there will be muslims and hindus); it is upto us to strengthen the better elements. Instead of complaining and becoming distraught, we must make an unprejudiced and frank attempt to confront.

Sadna: You must already be geared to face many asking to ``exercise restraint``. But I know you are still in ``Bootstrap mode`` of the faith.

You are good in this mode too. :)

I went to the site that u mentioned(truthindia). One can`t help lauding the attempts of the person.

Pullu

hobbyt #224
`` The Islamist work That I have presented and will present is actually leading up to an understanding for the efficacy of such a objective secularism, one which has as it`s foundation, religious pluralism and freedom of conscience based on universal moral principles of Islam.``

``that even if Indian Muslims had a choice to become Pakistanis, psychologically, it would be very difficult for them to make the leap from appeasemen to a position of strong defense of Islamic identity in India. What choices and course of action(s) this leaves Indian Muslims is for them decide. Freedom is never free. ``

hobbyt, just a question. Isn`t Pakistan supposed to be THE worked out example of ``one which has as it`s foundation, religious pluralism and freedom of conscience based on universal moral principles of Islam.`` on the subcontinent ? Is the noble purpose accomplished in Pakistan, do you think ?

sarwari #235
`` Why are you giving lectures on ``ignoring`` People and continuing to write, when you always sneak in a ``Sarwari`` here a there in almost every attempt to say something? ``

Which lecture? I ``sneaked in`` one ``sarwari, ylh, scout`` on this board. But you and others have done it so often with `sadna` when I was not even on the board, I seem to remember? And your views on Indians and their treatment of minorities have been very openly expressed by you often in colorful language. So why this double standard and outrage both?

btw, your post on `double minority` was a good one.


``How you`ve been raised``
Do I do that in response to something you say to me or just out of the blue?


`` If I was your grandmother I would make sure you get married to someone as unpleasent as Rsaxena so that only one house gets messed up insted of two. And I don`t need your comments on that Thank you. And if you are married apologize to your husband for me. And don`t you give me lectures about getting personal because you always make stupid comments about the way I`ve been raised. Gosh I was just saying you won`t be as frustrated if you have Tariq Road`s ``Goul Guppey````

Why is it always sexual innuendos and insults with you and ali1? I am just noticing, I donot really want to know, I assure you.

``Email me I am not done yet...``
Dial an insult? Be brave, say it here in open forum. Rule 0 of discussion forums : Donot ask those whom you are cursing to mail you for more.

soysauce #230
`` OK, so you are NOT a secularist.``

I didnot say that. I said I am not a ``self-professed`` one as you accused me of being. We are what we are by our actions and words, I donot believe in labels. (OK, Paki is a label, I will come to that.)

``If merely telling someone not to shoot the messenger is shooting that someone, well then, you have just shot me. It`s your turn now.. Sure you laid out your problems with the article in #27 & # 28. Why then #50+? Wasn`t that a tad, hmmm, mean-spirited? Just like the posts on Sulekha that call YOU a paki?``

soysauce, I posted a lot of material on why I suspected the author to have an agenda, and why I suspected he was not an Indian Muslim because he ``seems`` ignorant of facts vital to an Indian Muslim`s view of India`s secularism (such as it is). You on the other hand, are shooting at me because of one line in one post.

Turns out I was not far wrong about the `slant` of the article. The article was apparently written for a non-Indian website on which I have seen other anti-India articles. You can read his other articles there. Everyone has to make a living, as does this author.

But according to me, Indians speaking to each other or on the communal issue in India, have to accept the basic premise that Hindus and Muslims can live together. I consider whose who donot accept this basic premise are Pakistan-sympapthizers or Pakistanis at heart, irrespective of their religion. I have called Hindus who seem to reject this premise (of Hindus and Muslims being able to live together) Pakistanis or Pakistani/TNT sympathizers, and I donot see why I should not call Muslims that too, if they donot accept this basic premise at the core of the Indian nation(though I would do that with much more circumspection I assure you).

btw, this article raises many issues(and contains many inaccuracies). Your valiant defence of Indian secularism would be better achieved by concentrating on those, looking for defects in a single person like myself cannot achieve very much in this regard, I am already trying to do the best I can, though you have no value for it.

Sadna,

Why are you giving lectures on ``ignoring`` People and continuing to write, when you always sneak in a ``Sarwari`` here a there in almost every attempt to say something?

If I was your grandmother I would make sure you get married to someone as unpleasent as Rsaxena so that only one house gets messed up insted of two. And I don`t need your comments on that Thank you.

And if you are married apologize to your husband for me. And don`t you give me lectures about getting personal because you always make stupid comments about the way I`ve been raised. Gosh I was just saying you won`t be as frustrated if you have Tariq Road`s ``Goul Guppey``

Aisha Fayyazi Sarwari

Email me I am not done yet...

aisha_Sarwari@yahoo.com

Eklavya #212 :

``Girl, that`s some class.``

Man! How gay can you get?

Harimau.

In your post to YLH you seem to be mistaken about certain things.

``So long as that is not being done in India, your co-religionists have far more rights than the Hindus had for 1000 years under the heel

of Islamic thugs.``

History is filled with brutal rule of the strong over the weak. And to an extent Indian History is out to demonize anything ancient and non-hindu. Whatever is sustainable and usefull doesn`t go away. One great example is that Yoga still survives. And I think it does because it is not so closely bound to religion.

I feel that a foreign intrusion in those times were very important in building a stable and modern society today. Afghanistan was largely kept rural since the beginning, and faced no internal or external pressure to change, do better, and exploit dormant human or material resources. There is a lot of cultural diversity in India today because of that. Don`t you consider that a national asset or are you one of the people who spat at the Taj in protest? One more thing, Brutality is just that. It is not justifiable under any circumstances. If it has been done to your forefathers, quit getting a perverse pleasure out of being a victim because it is too far fetched.

``So shut up about the treatment of minorities in India. They have your country to go to if they don`t like it in India but I don`t see a

line in front of the Pakistan High Commission for visas.``

Some really ignorant people think that Pakistan should hold and house every non-Pakistani who happens to be a Muslim in order to justify its existence. Your statements are a representation of a vast majority of Indians who have nothing but suspicion for the Indian Muslims. If a Pakistani would have said the same thing about Hindus in Pakistan, you would have made this an international issue of human rights violations.

Later,

Aisha

http://paknews.com/articles.php?id=1&date1=2001-10-23

Well, well. Our own YLH screaming away on other web-sites.

Apparently, chowk is not enough.

I posted the ``4 Point Plan`` of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi rahmatullah alayhi in post 106 but I misquoted it due to errors in memory. Here is the ACTUAL 4 point plan of Ala Hazrat.

[

``..A‘lahazrat through his book published in 1912, presented four peerless points for the economic development of Muslim brethren. These are:

* * * *

1. Barring the affairs wherein Government is involved, the Muslims should decide all their disputes mutually so that millions of rupees, which are being spent over litigations, may be saved.

2. The affluent Muslims of Bombay, Calcutta, Rangoon, Madras and Hyderabad should open banks for other poor Muslims.

3. Muslims should not purchase anything from anybody except Muslims.

4. The sciences of Islam should be propagated and publicized,

* * * * * *

At the instance Prof. Rafiullah Siddiqui Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Hyderabad (Sindh), has written an article ``Fazil-i-Bareillvi Kay Char Ma‘ashi Nikaàt``, published from Maktaba-i-Chashm-i-Rahmat, Balrampur (UP), India. Prof. Siddiqui has beautifully explained all the four points at length; I have had all the appreciation for Prof. Siddiqui and his article.

Through his first point, A‘lahazrat has propounded the theory of savings. He has realized the significance of savings and has made people to realize it. In most of the under-developed countries, the rate of saving varies from 5 to 8%. Now the economic experts have declared that for economic development of the country, saving to the tune of 15% of the national income is a must. The importance of savings over-shadowed the world in 1936 when Lord J.M. Keynes of England presented his ``Theory of Savings & Investment``, which proved successful in overcoming the international depression. In short, according to Keynes, saving is all. It is equal to investment according to his Equation. Thus, more saving, more investment; more investment, more development. For this theory of Saving & Investment, Prof. J. M. Keynes was honored by England and the most prestigious title of ``Lord`` was conferred on him. Prof. Rafiullah Siddiqui has so nicely and so rightly quipped that Prof. J. M. Keynes was honored in 1936 for what was already pointed out by A‘lahazrat in 1912. Who deserved and who bagged the honor, is thus to be seen. Yet, it may be taken for granted that A‘lahazrat would not accept such an honor from British even if he were presented one.

Secondly, A‘lahazrat presented the theory of opening banks. Needless to mention that banks in the eyes of A‘lahazrat were meant to be interest-free banks. History of banking is known to all of us. A‘lahazrat suggested and talked of opening banks at a time when banks played no significant role in the country. In 1912, there were only a few banks in India, in big cities, and nobody could foresee then that after a lapse of three or four decades, the importance of banks would assume so much proportion. No doubt, it was A‘lahazrat who was able to peep into future and suggest boosting up the banking industry before hand.

A bank is an institution through which the savings of the masses are deployed over productive investment. It is bank that collects pennies but provides pounds. Banks help the people create tendency of saving. Being a great economist. A‘lahazrat well realized the hazards of hoarding and advocated for the development of the banking industry.

The third point of A‘lahazrat is that Muslims should purchase each and every thing from Muslims only. Apparently, this point appears to be based on somewhat narrow-mindedness. But it is not so, if we go deep. What A‘lahazrat says is that Muslims should purchase from Muslims only. It is not restricted to a particular place, locality or province. It means that Muslims countries should purchase from Muslim countries only. It means that A‘lahazrat has opposed the free-trade theory as espoused by Adam Smith and suggested Trade Protection so as to withstand the competition in the international market. Fredrick List, a noted German economist has emphatically supported the Trade Protection Policy. Prof. Rafiullah Siddiqui has very much appreciated this point of A‘lahazrat. According to him, A‘lahazrat wanted to provide economic protection to Muslims but the Muslims neglected the economic acumen highlighted by their own savant, A‘lahazrat.

To the misfortune of Muslims, what was pinpointed by A‘lahazrat for the benefit of Muslims, was utilized by non-Muslims. Second World War had badly ruined Germany, France, Italy etc. The economy of these European countries was crippled. European Common Market (E.C.M) consisting of six European countries came into existence. It achieved marvelous success and the entire World witnessed that it changed the entire story. The staggering economy of these countries mustered a sudden boom and the German mark became the powerful currency of the world. After all, what was this E.C,M.? It was a practical shape of the guidelines given by A‘lahazrat just on the lines that Muslims should make purchases from Muslims only. Even today, if the Muslim countries unite and follow such a policy, luck will smile upon them.

Now come to the fourth point. It is regarding the publicity of Islamic sciences. When theories of economics are going on, how far it is desirable to talk of Islamic sciences or religion. A Mawlawi always remains a Mawlawi-some people may think. Prof. Siddiqui has duly appreciated the importance of knowledge of Islamic sciences but meanwhile he has gone to say that this fourth point is not in regard to economics. With due respect to Prof. Siddiqui, I would like to say that he has hastened to observe like so, perhaps because of its appearance. Prof. Siddiqui has succeeded in realizing the importance of this point but has failed to link it with economic theories.

To my mind, this point is all the more important. Everybody knows that there is lot of difference between theory and practice. Implementation is an upheaval task. The first three points of A‘lahazrat provide a theoretical approach. The fourth one provides a pragmatic approach. It must be borne in mind that A‘lahazrat has introduced what we may call Muslim Economics. He has talked of benefit and betterment of only Muslims. From this angle, all the four points are inter-connected. The first point of A‘lahazrat is regarding mutual settlement of their disputes. The idea is so nice but its implementation is fairly difficult. As says Adam Smith, ``man is the born servant of self interest``. Everybody wants to gain. Nobody wants to lose. In quest of gain, man runs after the courts headlong. He runs and runs towards the courts till he gets a gain what he calls justice. Such a race towards the gain makes the litigation time-consuming as well as money-consuming. Now A‘lahazrat speaks of preaching and teaching Islamic sciences to the people. He means to say that spirit of Islam must prevail upon the Muslims. A‘lahazrat goes to say that such an abrupt race of litigation can be controlled only with the spirit of Islam. Under true spirit of Islam, Muslims shall prefer to get their disputes decided only by their Muftis whom they would consider as heirs of Holy Prophet and regarding Holy Prophet (Allah’s Grace and Peace be upon him), the Holy Qur’an declares as under:-

``By Allah, they shall not be Muslims unless they make you Hàkim in matter of their disputes and unless they accept your decision by heart and feel no hindrance whatsoever there from in their hearts.``

Thus, a true Muslim shall be duly satisfied with the decision of a Mufti regardless of the fact whether he remains a gainer or loser. He would accept the decision by heart. Nor would he take it as point of prestige, as a true Muslim wants nothing but what Allah and His Holy Prophet (Allah’s Grace and Peace be upon him) want for him. He would not knock at the doors of the court at all. A short meeting with a Mufti can solve a long dispute. Thus, it would be seen that the fourth point advanced by A‘lahazrat is very much linked with the theory of mutual settlements Muslims by avoiding litigation with a view to ensuring large savings.

The second point is of opening Muslim banks. Muslims would like to help Muslims only when they are taught to help them in terms of Islamic sciences, that is, in light of Holy Qur’an and Hadith. Interest is a prize of exploitation. Muslims would refrain from accepting interest if they are told that usury is haram (strictly forbidden) according to Holy Qur’an and whosoever accepts interest, should be ready to fight with Allah on the Day of Judgment. Only through the injunction of Islamic spirit, which flows from the knowledge of Islamic sciences attained through the study of Islamic books or through the company of Islamic savants, Muslims can agree to opening of interest-free banks and usury can be put an end to. If the rich people open banks out of their riches, the poor people will get rid of their poverty to a great extent. First, the poor will be able to get employment in various projects financed by banks. Secondly, the poor section will be able to secure interest-free loans from the banks, which they would get otherwise at a heavy rate of interest. Thus, the second and fourth points of A‘lahazrat are well linked together.

Muslims should make purchases from Muslims only — is the third point. It does not purport to say that Muslims should sell to Muslims only. A‘lahazrat is restricting outgoings only of Muslims. Unless the Muslims are taught of their religion, nothing can be achieved in this field. A person, who has no knowledge of Islamic studies, is western-minded, would hardly purchase anything from Muslims. He would be addicted to using foreign goods and would not hesitate to purchase them from any corner. Nowadays, it is seen that those who have craze for using foreign goods, may it be, cigarette, wine or anything like that, help the foreign companies earn a lot of foreign exchange. A Muslim would make purchases from Muslims only when it is impressed upon him that Holy Qur’an declares:

(Space for Arabic script) ``Innam al-Mo’minoona Ikhwatun``

That is, ``Muslim and a Muslim are brethren.`` Unless he treats the other Muslim as his brother, he would not extend him a brotherly-treatment. Moreover the teachings of Islam shall bear wide repercussions on the standard of trade. No trader would like to give short weight as it is forbidden in Islam. No trader would make any adulteration of any kind, as it is forbidden in Islam. No trader would try to conceal defect, if any, in his commodity as it is forbidden in Islam. No trader would resort to unnecessary hoarding of stock as it is forbidden in Islam. No trader would allow unnecessary bargaining in price as it is forbidden in Islam. In this manner, under the yoke of Islam, trade will wear a bloomy look. If Muslims undertake to make purchases from Muslims only and if Islamic spirit prevails, then a Muslim will not be able to get wine, because no Muslim would like to sell it as it is forbidden in Islam. In this way, not only the trade will flourish but it will also bring about a flawless society.

So, it is evident that all the four points of A‘lahazrat are coherent and co-related insofar as Muslim Economics is concerned...``

endquote from www.sunnirazvi.org (an excellent site).

I still maintain this is the way to Muslim revival in India and elsewhere insha Allah..

please disregard my earlier post 106. (If possible the moderator should delete post 106 of mine).

#187 Sadhana

OK, so you are NOT a secularist.

If merely telling someone not to shoot the messenger is shooting that someone, well then, you have just shot me. It`s your turn now..

Sure you laid out your problems with the article in #27 & # 28. Why then #50+? Wasn`t that a tad, hmmm, mean-spirited? Just like the posts on Sulekha that call YOU a paki?

Who am i to tell you all this? You don`t mean that really, do you? After all, i am THE soysauce..

Banjara Guru ji,

I have some questions for you. Does the word ``ast`` mean ``is`` in Persian? If it does, how do you say ``are`` in Persian?

Dhanya vad.

There is an excellent op-ed piece in today`s Wall Street Journal print edition [Oct 24] by Amir Taheri, an Iranian journalist who is based in Paris. I am not going to name it here because the usual apologists will spout their usual apoloties/denials. Then let us discuss it. Unfortunately it is not on their free site.

Re Eklavya

If anybody can be as far removed from a techno type, it is moi. In fact, my understanding of hindi is slightly better than my understanding of technology, especially physics, and to begin with, my hindi is good enough only to hail a cab in a North Indian city, at the most.

Eklavya, Zafar

I told my guests that Pakistanis had scarified so much to build armed forces to not be blackmailed by India and that they were just plain wrong in the continuous appeasement. They said the usual, not all Hindus are ... so I asked them why then do they find themselves in the situation they do. After which my beautiful bride cleverly managed to change the subject to events and trends in Pakistan.

Of course, I am conscious that so many people want to be able to simply live their lives peacefully, in an amicable atmosphere with others. However, I am also aware that this is not possible for us, presently. For all of us have failed to examine in detail what must be the foundations of our desire to ensure a structure which we (our culture and identity) is not just preserved, but thrives, evolves or whatever, so long as it is free.

So many Indians on these boards swear by their version of secularism. A version in which promises to create an Indian Identity but which from my perspective, is dedicated to creating culturally Hindu Indian identity.

I have no problem with a secularism, the original sense of secularism, the so called “objective secularism``, (the one derived from and based on religious moral principles)in the sense of modern differentiation of institutions, not the ``subjective secularism`` in the sense of cultural and psychological decimation of religion, and in particular, Islam in India, while not so secretly promoting Hindu religion and culture.

The Islamist work That I have presented and will present is actually leading up to an understanding for the efficacy of such a objective secularism, one which has as it`s foundation, religious pluralism and freedom of conscience based on universal moral principles of Islam.

The difference between the Objective and subjective secularism is that in the former the institutions are differentiated, religion being an institution and religious knowledge, it`s subset; religion grows strong, relevant and a moral force, whereas in the latter, it is actually under attack. It is in this rational that calls for greater ``Indianization”, which calls for “cultural nationalism” in India, should be viewed. Wait then to hear that Hinduism is not a religion as such it is more a philosophy of life. Hmmm? Which reflects itself in the culture of society? Hmmm? No longer societies?



The Indian version of secularism will succeed for the Hindus and will marginalize the Muslim; such is its design. That remains the problem of the Indian Muslim; which is why I said to Zafar, that even if Indian Muslims had a choice to become Pakistanis, psychologically, it would be very difficult for them to make the leap from appeasement to a position of strong defense of Islamic identity in India. What choices and course of action(s) this leaves Indian Muslims is for them decide. Freedom is never free.

The saddest part of the read, is the ``triple`` jeopardy this places the Indian Muslim in, as is evident from the predicament, reflected in some responses. Educated Indian Muslims want to see themselves as being safe in secularism, but fail to differentiate between the promise and the reality, that is they do not question the quality(ies) that can lead to the desired effect, but have abandoned themselves to an unexamined version of secularism. Yet I am reconciled to hold hope; hope surviving, clutching to the adage ``that which does not break your back, will only make you stronger``

Zafar

``Vaisai, TNT was a conspiracy against Indian Muslims by their “leaders” – big fish in small pond syndrome.``

And the ``butter will not melt in their mouth`` Hindu leaders had nothing to do with it? We can have deeply help positions, but please let us not dispense with honesty, entirely.

“No such thing as a great Muslim nation in India?? No such thing as Muslim culture in India??”

There is an Indian nation which includes people of different religions. Why is that hard to accept?``

Zafar, India has always been many nations, it has never except in modern times been a single nation, with a single culture and a single language, with a single anything. The ambition that India be a single country, which includes people from different religions, different races, etc is a most noble, and praseworthy ambition. All I am suggesting is that the modalities employed for the pursuit of this ambition be examined. Read my bit about objective and subjective secularism; please read Daniel Bell, Robert Bellah and Peter Berger for a more detailed discussion. Or just read what VHP, BJP think of secularist on their website.

“imagine Maulana Fazul Rahman winning an election on a platform that call for the destruction of some temple, is actually elected and appointed to the second most powerful post in government. Well, sure, it could happen.”

This presupposes elections.

Elections in Pakistan? It`s relevance. Like questioning the nationality of the author of the paper? Touché? Then you will you choose to disregard the recent local body elections, creating both a democratic structure and bringing the process to peoples who have never actually experienced it their lives.

A cheap shot, Unworthy of you, because you could have dealt with the substance of my response not the validity of my right to a point of view.

Did Maulana f Rahman`s, JUI win big in the recent local election? You know the answer

``Who says religious nationalism of any kind is a good thing for India? The only nationalism there should be in India is Indian nationalism.``

Again, examine the content of ``Indian nationalism`` as we understand it today, rather as those ruling elite postulate intellectual trends about this notion. I know this cannot be what you mean.

``SIMI promotes the violent dissolution of the country, which is against the law.`` And the destruction of Masajid? is....? not violent? will not lead to dissolution? Courts are a remedy you say, but not for SIMI? Fro RSS, Bajrand Dal, Shiv Sena? Again don`t misunderstand me, I honor the civil course you seek, yet I question if such a course will be efficacious against fascist thugs.

Remember the Prime Minister of India calls the destruction of the Babri ``an expression of national will`` - Clearly these statements do not alarm you, but will you not be mindful of those to whom not just alarm but action is called for?

ISI Check? - It`s in the mail.

``There is no one trend in any country – certainly as true of Pakistan as of India.``

Yes, correct, but some trends are clearly more distinguished than others. Listen, you can disagree with this author or myself or anybody, but it`s just smart to not dismiss the general sense that comes through.

``What makes you think we have to abandon any portion of our history and culture? And how does our history and culture differ from other Indians` history and culture? Aren’t they the same? How are they different?``

The point of the article is just that that Muslims history and culture is under attack in India. I know you will not not buy that. Again, India has many histories and many cultures. It is only in the last 54 years that it has had the task to create what can be called a version of history that can help in it crafting a vision of a single peoples. Let`s take history in America as an example, where is the indigenous American and why? Could it have been different? why not?

``Kya kahthe ho bhai?``

This is a kindness you do me and I am grateful. I may be no friend, but I not a foe either.

Zafar Al-Talib

http://www.dailypioneer.com/secon2.asp?cat= story7&d=FRONT_PAGE

“ The unwarranted remark by Imam Bukhari came in response to a pertinent question from Shabana. She had asked him if he has issued a fatwa to all Muslims to prepare for jehad, ``why don`t you go to Kandahar and start the process. This would take away our troubles too,`` she told him during a video conferencing sequence on the subject Why the voice of liberal Muslims goes unheard``.

His response was: ``Main naachne gaane wali tawaifon ke sawalon ka jawab nahin dena chahta hoon.``

……. on national tv?!!?……what a piece of….and i thought our mullahs were bad….this guy takes the cake…shabana’s right….airdrop him into kandahar…..ASAP…..

Reply Harimau # 189

Harimau

Every time I seem to have convinced my friend Hobbyty that Indian Muslims see themselves, and are seen by other Indians, as fully Indian and NOT citizens on sufferance (ie potential fifth columnists for Pakistan) you manage to lob in a post which:

1 Implies that you think that Muslims are fundamentally different from other Indians, and/or

2 Clearly states that in your opinion Indian Muslims are present in India only on the sufferance of Indian Hindus and not as of right in their own country, and/or

3 Makes no recognition of the fact that Indian culture is composite whole which includes the religious and social traditions of everyone who lives there, including Indian Muslims, and usually

4 Throws in some gratuitous abuse of Islam and the Koran.

There’s a term of ridicule for subcontinental Muslims who base their current self image on a spurious idea of a golden age when Muslims ran everything and built the Taj Mahal. You seem to be equally committed to living in the past rather than the present, only instead of going on about imagined glories you dwell on historical wrongs done to one set of dead people by another set of dead people. What is the word for such a person? And what’s the point?

A few more questions:

1 Do you think I am fundamentally different from you because of my religion? Why?

2 Do you think I am less Indian than you because of my religion? Why?

3 Do you think your culture is different from my culture? How so? If we’re both Indian don’t we share the same Indian culture?

If you answer, please don`t try and assign blame for your views to things some vague entity called ``the Muslims`` allegedly do. You`re writing these posts, not ``the Muslims``. You are responsible for what you write, not ``them``.

The term “co-religionists” also usually comes up in your posts – generally coupled with an invitation to subcontinental Muslims to take responsibility for the actions of people from places like Afghanistan or Sudan – in fact to take responsibility for the actions of just about anybody but themselves from just about any country but our own. (Pakistan for Pakistanis, India for Indian Muslims.) Instead of staying in a midieval mindset that sees the world as “co-religionists” of this or that or falana, don’t you think you owe your fellow nationals a little bit more decency? (Dislike Aurangzeb all you like – I’m not challenging your view of history – just be conscious that he’s DEAD and Indian Muslims who are around today are not him.)

To be frank, I have come to expect this kind of attitude (and uncultured aggressiveness) from a very few of the less enlightened Pakistani posters on Chowk. It’s embarrassing to hear the same kind of stupidity from a fellow Indian.

Zafar