The Great Illusion

Layman Ji,

The Revathy Gopal`s of this world are not mad but cheats, crooks and liars. This St Thomas thing has been disproved many times in many distinct fora (google for it).

At the same time to please their Christian/Western overlords they publish tripe like this.

Regards
Sanatani

REF 161 by urstruly:

Make no mistake, Tikka was a patriot. Dont forget Tikka`s role in defending Sialkot in 1965, and in the Rann of Kutch before that. Tikka was also an important part of the initiation of Pakistan`s nuclear program in 1972; much of the early implementation was coordinated by him since the army was responsible for the program, even though the father of the program is Bhutto.

As for East Pakistan, Tikka was not involved in the political negotiations that preceded Operation Searchlight. Searchlight was a modified form of operation Blitz

Do some detailed research as i have done, and you will find out that a united Pakistan was dead long before Searchlight was launched. On 23rd March 1971, Dhaka was deserted, with black flags on almost every house. The argument that the so called genocide after March 25th ignores the fact that Mujeeb and Zia both declared independence very soon on the night of March 25/26. This was before any major fighting. One thing was clear in March 1971; Pakistan as we knew it was dead since Mujeeb`s 6 points went far beyond autonomy. Infact, the sort of capital controls that Mujeeb wanted would not have been acceptable to any country.

Tikka landed in East Pakistan at 3:40PM on March 7th, 1971. He did NOT have any role in the political negotiations with Mujeeb at this time. He requested a meeting with Mujeeb which Mujeeb turned down due to his own political reasons. Tikka`s orders at this time were clear; Take NO action against anyone and keep the army in the barracks, which he implemented. He is often portrayed as the man who favored a military solution to the dispute, which is not true since he supported the begotiations that were going on, even though he was NOT a part of those negotiations. Read Salik`s book, a firsthand account, which makes it clear along with internal army documents that Tikka was not informed of the status of the negotiations. He did not know what was going on; only late on 23rd March was he told by Yahya to launch military operations.

Now for the casualties. No sane observer believes the lie of 3 million dead. Look at some well informed Bengali observers and look at their revised casualty figure, which is far lower though still has a big range. But think, how can 3 million peopel be killed in 280 days? That comes out to about a 11,000 people a day..the poorly armed and overstretched Pakistani army could not have killed peopel at this rate...Pakistan had about 40,000 soldiers at the start and about 50,000 later...the 93,000 included many many civilians as well...Innocent people died in that war..like every war...that is why wars are bad..especially civil wars...dont forget that Biharis and Bengalis also fought with each other and that also increased civilian casualties.

Lastly, let me remind you that Tikka in East Pakistan was firm in the face of adversity and was very honest in his financial dealings...unliike Niazi who broke down on the 3rd day of the war in December after declaring that ``Dhaka would fall over his dead body``, also pointing that tanks would roll over his chest for Dhaka to fall. I can assure you that Tikka would not have surrendered to the Indian forces...the result perhaps would have been the same but we would not have surrendered...nor did Tikka smuggle paans like Niazi was doing. He was transferred out of East Pakistan in early september..this was part of a political strategy. In West Pakistan, Tikka was ready to strike at India...and consistently requested the GHQ to grant his reserve corps to attack strategic parts in India to deflect the pressure on East Pakistan..yet the orders never came on time. Tikka was shocked when Pakistan surrendered..he was ready to fight till the end on the West Pakistan front.

You blame the army for intrusion into politics, and i totally agree that the army should not have any political role to play in Pakistan. That is what Tikka did...he never interfered with Bhutto`s political policies and ensured the army remained under civilian control.

Tikka was honest to the core as a politician and as a General. He was a patriot, who did what he was ordered to do on march 25th. Do not forget that the East Pakistan issue did not start up overnight by Tikka`s landing in Dhaka..do you honestly think that Tikka himself alienated the Bengalis in the days before Searchlight was launched? He refrained from taking any steps that would jeopardize the status of negotiations during those 18 days before march 25th. Remember, your Quaid e Azam also angered the Bengalis by declaring that only Urdu would be their official language. Later, Ayub Khan`s years totally alienated the East Pakistanis due to bad official policies and neglect.. The 1965 war further alienated them since they rightly felt that Kashmir was more important for West Pakistanis...and lastly, we all know the attitude of the West Pakistanis in general to the East Pakistanis.

Tikka was a soldier, and as a soldier his duty was to obey his superiors...he did that. East Pakistan may still have falled had Tikka been in the Eastern command in December..but i can assure you he and his troops would have died fighting the Indians, not surrendered like ``Tiger`` Niazi.

re: hobbyty # 454

I am not at all sanguine about the salutary effects of education. ``Education`` has been and will continue to be a tool with which to indoctrinate and brainwash young people, as much as to liberate them to think for themselves. Let us call education that aims to liberate individuals to think for themselves liberal education. There can be NO liberal education at the public level in societies that seek to preserve old, outdated dogmas. The decision to create a public system of liberating education comes BEFORE such education comes to exist in societies.

I hope you see this obvious and tragic chicken and egg problem: Without liberal (liberating) education, there is no public-level desire to reinterpret old and outdated dogmas. But without reinterpretation of old and outdated dogmas, there is no public-level support for liberating education. The swarming hordes of fanatical young people one sees around the world, propounding their peculiar world-views are ``educated`` in the ways of existing dogma. They are unlikely to create a liberating educational system for the children of tomorrow.

So, hobbyty, the problem remains: What will lead to an educational system that Asma Barlas has in mind. I am not even sure she has liberating education in mind. If she does, how does she propose to create such a system?

Since abstract argumentation has lately become the refuge of scoundrels and obfuscators, let me take up a practical example. You will agree that Islam, properly interpreted, can NOT be expected to teach bigotry, human inequality, violence against people for their beliefs, and ideas of ``free lunch`` to Muslims in dealings with other human beings.

In that light, what, in your opinion, will lead Saudi Arabia to allow the building of churches, temples, Imambaras, and synogogues on its land? What public education will enable a resident of Mecca who seeks to convert to Christianity and construct a Church to act on his or her conscience? How can such a public system of education be established in Saudi Arabia?

I will sincerely be interested in your answer to this powerful conundrum of development that some societies face.

And Nagit, one more thing. I might have been converted in Arabia/Persia by the sword.

How about you?Does it give you satisfaction to say that , you werent?

Soundmeister

``whenever the issue of Islamic terrorism is discussed, normal Muslims start defending Islam, talking about how it`s the language of peace, tolerance, love, how the Koran does not preach violence etc. Which is slightly irritating because it`s as if is the Koran DID preach violence, it would be a-ok to go around bombing planes and skyscrapers. Is is such a big stretch to react as human beings rather than Muslims? I think it`s precisely this kind of defensiveness that has prompted replies like the one asked by that angry young man.``

Islamic terrorism? - Isn`t it exactly this point that Ms. Berlas is trying to get thru - ? But if it is, to you , ``Islamic terrorism``, why the slight irritation, why not validation of your point of view? Quran preach violence? no, but it certainly does not preach turn the other cheek - it has a realistic or worldly view - if you allow violence to be done to you once, it will be done to you repeatedly - Paraphasing Hamlet: to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or by opposing, end them. Defensiveness? I agree.

Fawad

Do you think there is a relationship between what you describe and attitudes generally found in Hinduism, about being Hindu? Do you think it has some relationship to caste?

i want to to adress the original topic of this post---this article. I will start by anecdotal evidennce. I was at my mother`s cousin`s house and the topic was partition . I always like asking my nani about pre partition british india and she was telling me stories. Well anyway she told me how white my great grandffather was , he was so white people thought he was a Brit. Funny , well my uncle said that was cuz my family was ``bagdadi`` indicating our iraqi origin. I said with all due respect that is bullshit cuz we were arain and arain were hindu farmers who converted to islam........... Well anyway my grandmother said no we were arain and we only married within arain so our arab blood was in tact....i found this amuzing and sad....Amuzing because my grandmother actually believed this sad cuz we were not proud of coming from the soil of pakistan we were proud of a dubious if even true foreign lineage!!!!!!!! Well i think many pakistanis have an arab perisna turk complex and i think its time to wipe it out most are afraid if they shake their family true a hindu will fall out i say so what.....if my ancestors were hindu then so be it .....it doesnt mean i am one or want to revert its just who i am......

i would really be interested in every pakistani or indians thoughts on this glorification of foreign ancestrty

Reply to Asma`s question...

``Second, the average American puts a billion Muslims, to say nothing of Islam itself, on call for the actions of a few men. By this logic, he should blame all Americans for the U.S. bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima after the Japanese had broadcast their terms of surrender, all Germans for the Holocaust, the whole right-wing for Timothy McVeigh’s actions, etc. How is it that everyone can claim individualized identities, thus being able to disassociate themselves from people with whose actions they disagree, but not Muslims?``

It`s interesting that you should raise that question, because I think there is an important difference. Something that an American friend called to my attention: the fact that whenever the issue of Islamic terrorism is discussed, normal Muslims start defending Islam, talking about how it`s the language of peace, tolerance, love, how the Koran does not preach violence etc. Which is slightly irritating because it`s as if is the Koran DID preach violence, it would be a-ok to go around bombing planes and skyscrapers. Is is such a big stretch to react as human beings rather than Muslims? I think it`s precisely this kind of defensiveness that has prompted replies like the one asked by that angry young man.

Nagnathweshwar

``Whats going on between you & adha Mussalman Zafar ?Between you & me ,i think he is a recent convereted muslim .Not like you original related to Arabia Persia.``

Nagit: - it`s hard to say, I think Adha Musalma Zafar and I at least want to talk things out - it things clear in our minds - I had invited yu to comment as a way of getting you involved instead you had a curious reaction to an invitation to talk - Oh, well - maybe in the future you will keep your powder dry, till needed?

Clearly Zafar is a recent convert, certainly not like me - how about you?

Prem

To the adherent, his or her religion is and should be ``perfect`` - to the adherent - as I remarked to Shankar, why would anybody want to be an adherent of any religion that is not ``perfect`` (recall the concept of indexicality)

Reinterpretaions (plural) will take time - yes, they will and should - obscuritanists, on this issue stand without support of educated persons; examine it for yourself, wherever mass education is available and compulsory, obscuritanists fail to make a dent - wherever the level and quality of educationis low, obscuritanists flourish and criticism recedes.

Obscuritanists are or have a high profile because of their political activism - not religious activism - others argue that I am mistaken, in error. Witness: Madrassahs flourish and it`s a matter of pride and joy that the light of education and the love of the word of God should find thirsting students - but it`s not ethics of God, nor FAITH that is being built or taught - rather the it is certitude over faith, intolerance over the pluralism of salvation that are making their mark - because these further a political agenda - this political agenda does has wide support in the following sense, if a case is made that many Muslim populations do not find themselves or their heritrage or culture or religious beliefs, valued and seek to regain political freedom and sovergnty - most Muslims anywhere, everywhere will support such a struggle - such a struggle is the tide of history itself - the binding together and dispersion of peoples is itself like the wave of the oceans, played out in history. However; a greater, more powerful intellectual movement, not without it`s own political and social implications, is the infusion of new knowledge to the study of the Quran and it`s guidance for man, for this and the near future age. Asking the question ``what does it mean to be a Muslim`` is itself a glorious consciousness born of criticism and this is itself revolutionary; and as you are aware, Islam is far from exhausted, it is infact bubbling with intllectual and ethical energy and it`s implications for Muslim societies is, by far, more profound that the cultural imperatives emanating from the West - and this coming transition and transformation also has implications for the entire world.

re: hobbyty # 447

``We also must learn to read the Qur’an for its “best meanings,” as the Qur’an itself tells us to do. Such an injunction clearly recognizes that we can read a text in multiple ways but that not all readings of it may be equally appropriate.``

Hobbyty, apparently, Asma Barlas is reiterating the point that Soroush (from what I have learnt of him through you) and many other people from other religious traditions have been making for a very long time: all religion must be constantly reinterpreted/updated in light of changing contexts.

The challenge is to lay out (1) a vision of such an interpretation and (2) a path to such reinterpretation? It will also be interesting to know why, in Asma Barlas` view, such reinterpretation has not occurred?

Personally, I believe that with proper interpretation, Islam can indeed claim to be a perfect religion (not the only perfect religion; one of the perfect religions). But, then, it is easier to move mountains than to divert societies from one set of dominant interpretations of religion to a radically different one.

Nagesteshwar

Fiber! - more Fiber in your diet will help and

I will learn to use a spell checker.

Reply Nagnatheshwar # 444

“Simbly arrest every damn big leaders of Vhp RSS on eve of such events.”

Yes, but how and why do they benefit from communal polarisation. That’s the fundamental driver for this kind of violence, and that’s what has to be dealt with.

Shammi, Prem, Dost, Nagateswar, Sadna, Urstruly, Alpha

I ran across this opinion piece in the ``Daily Times`` and it interested me, perhaps it is relevant to this discussion: Opinions welcomed

“Will the ‘Real’ Islam please stand up?”

Asma Barlas

After disavowing any interest in Islam, the “average American” nonetheless fires off seven questions at Muslims, of which I will quote only one. Why, he asks, are Muslims making it “sound like there are two versions of the Koran floating around out there Ever since 9/11, Muslims in the US have been under pressure to identify the “real” Islam. Although this demand seems to suggest a genuine interest in Islam, in this essay, I argue that it is often simply an ideological assault on Muslims, albeit disguised as an innocent quest for knowledge. I also consider whether this is an appropriate question and whether Muslims should respond to it.

“Average Americans” and the “real” Islam

In an essay circulated widely on the internet last October, a man calling himself an “average American” demands to know why, in the wake of 9/11, the media has been bombarding him with instructions

on how I should ‘understand’ Islam? Thanks but no thanks. I really don’t give a rat’s —- about Islam...[If it is true that] these terrorist guys who pulled off the 9/11 attacks don’t really represent the actual Islamic faith...why should I be the target audience on what the ‘true’ Islam really is? Shouldn’t the media ...be instructing these ‘wayward’ Muslims and their followers who have ‘hijacked’ Islam about the true meaning of the Koran and Islam?

After disavowing any interest in Islam, the “average American” nonetheless fires off seven questions at Muslims, of which I will quote only one. Why, he asks, are Muslims making it “sound like there are two versions of the Koran floating around out there. If so, what is the difference between the Koran that the Terrorists are reading, and the Koran that the rest of the Muslim world is reading?...I need to have the ‘real’ Islam please stand up.” Even as he demands “direct and specific answers” to his questions, however, the “average American” also makes it clear that he’s not prepared to hear history about the Crusades, or the US foreign policy crap, or the rage of Muslims, or the Palestinian claims to the same land as the Israelis, or comparisons to Christianity and Judaism, or stories of poverty or hunger, or the CIA...and ‘blame the victim’ excuses....At this point, the majority of Americans don’t want to hear excuses. We want action.

I can’t do an extensive reading of this essay here, but I want to make some, perhaps obvious, points about it.

First, the average American clearly holds “Islam” rather than Muslims responsible for 9/11; this is evident from the fact that it is the “real” Islam that he wants to stand up in the wake of 9/11 (notice how he speaks of Islam as if it were a person), as well as from the fact that he rules out the possibility that politics or economics or much of anything else could explain the hijackers’ actions.

This confusion of Islam with Muslims is common enough in the West, but it is restricted only to Islam. Certainly, no one asked the “real Judaism” to stand up after Jewish terrorist groups began the practice of bombing civilians in the Middle East in the 1940s and ‘50s. Nor did people ask the “real Christianity” to stand up in the wake of the Crusades, the Conquest, or the slave trade. Nor were there demands for the “real Shintoism” to stand up in the wake of the Japanese kamikaze bombings of World War II.

In fact, we usually explain such events in terms of a mix of political, economic, cultural, historical, and ideological factors. So why ignore history, culture, politics, economics, and ideology where it comes to Muslims? For example, why not interpret 9/11 in terms of a twisted Saudi nationalism, given that bin Laden and most of the hijackers were Saudis?

Second, the average American puts a billion Muslims, to say nothing of Islam itself, on call for the actions of a few men. By this logic, he should blame all Americans for the U.S. bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima after the Japanese had broadcast their terms of surrender, all Germans for the Holocaust, the whole right-wing for Timothy McVeigh’s actions, etc. How is it that everyone can claim individualized identities, thus being able to disassociate themselves from people with whose actions they disagree, but not Muslims?

Third, the “average American” makes it sound as if the problem of interpretive pluralism and extremism are unique to Islam, as if there are no contestary readings of Judaism and Christianity and no extremist Jews or Christians or secular humanists, for that matter! He thus suggests that there is a radical difference between Muslims and everyone else.

Fourth, his disinterest in Islam does not keep the “average American” from grilling Muslim and while his questions pretend to open up some conversational space, he shuts it down by a priori characterizing any sort of response on our parts as an “excuse” and by demanding “action,” not excuses. What this action might entail seems clear from the ever-broadening scope of the “war against terrorism.”

The academic face of Janus

It isn’t just the “average” Americans who is choosing to engage Islam in this way. Consider Bernard Lewis, the noted expert on Islam whose book, What Went Wrong? was reviewed by Paul Kennedy in the New York Times Book Review (January 27, 2002: 9).

On the cover of Book Review the headline is “Islam builds a prison and locks itself inside” (notice how the Review also speaks about Islam as if it were a person). Inside, the headline is “The Real Culture Wars,” and under it: “Bernard Lewis writes on the conflict between the West and Islam that has been centuries in the making.”

On Lewis’s account, this conflict is the result of the fact that whereas in the 18th century, the US and Western Europe “took off to another world, one that was increasingly secular, democratic, industrial and tolerant . . .the Middle East...did not...the Muslim world rested on its laurels—until it was besieged by Western ships, armaments, iron goods and cheap textiles, to all of which it became harder and harder to respond.”

Not only did the Muslim world lag behind, argues Lewis, but it has failed to catch up as is clear from the fact that “Mozart and Shakespeare and Voltaire... Stravinsky, jazz, and George Orwell...stop at the frontiers of the Arab world, which has shown little interest in how others think, write, compose.”

“What, then, is to be done?” asks Kennedy and answers himself by paraphrasing Lewis: they can continue on “a downward spiral of hate and spite, rage and self-pity, poverty and oppression,” or, they can “abandon grievance and victim-hood, settle their differences and join their talents, energies and resources in a common creative endeavor...the choice is their own.”

Again, I can’t do an extensive reading of this review, but notice how Lewis also confuses Islam with Muslims and Arabs and, in fact, with the Middle East. The facts that Islam is a religion, Arabs and Muslims a people, and the Middle East a geographic region don’t seem to bother him.

Notice, also, his tendency to speak of Muslim societies in terms not of history or politics or economics or culture, but essentializing psychological essences of “hate and spite, rage and self-pity...grievance and victim-hood.” Is there any single group of people, other than Muslims, about whom anyone could speak in this vein and not be called a racist?

While Lewis wrote his book before 9/11, his view of Muslims also helps to re-present 9/11 in purely religious and psychological terms, like the average American does and, in so doing, lets everyone else off the hook from having to undertake self-critique. In fact, suggesting that we need to rethink policies that may be aiding the political-economy of terrorism immediately evokes the charge of being anti-American.

The points of similarity between Lewis and the average American suggest that they constitute the academic and popular sides of the same coin; in fact, one authorizes and legitimizes the other. After all, would the phrase the “Real Culture Wars” have any resonance if there wasn’t a demand to have the “real” Islam “stand up?”

So, on the one hand, Muslims are being badgered to define the “real” Islam and, on the other, we’re being told what the “real” Islam is and that too by people who aren’t even Muslims! Aren’t such people as guilty as the terrorists were of hijacking Islam to serve their own ends? And are they really invested in our speaking meaningfully about Islam?

Islam’s reality for Muslims

Even though the public discourse is not conducive for any kind of soul searching on the part of Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, and even though it is silencing Muslims, I believe we have a great deal at stake in continuing to talk about Islam.

I believe, however, that we need to approach the issue of what Islam “really” teaches from a different perspective. For instance, in my work (Believing Women in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur’an, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2002), I attempt to show that oppressive readings of the Qur’an are a function of who has read it, how, and in what contexts. To be specific, they are the result of the interpretive strategies that Muslims have/have not used to read the Qur’an, as well as of how religious authority has been structured in Muslim patriarchal societies.

Of course, to say that meanings are always contingent—in other words, that knowledge is never independent of the contexts and processes of its own production—is not to say anything new. But, once we recognize the role of human agency and social structures in interpretive processes, the question becomes not “will the real Islam stand up?” but how and why did Muslim identities, consciousnesses, and histories intertwine in specific ways to produce certain readings of Islam rather than others?

This way of framing the question allows us to distinguish between the Qur’an and its exegesis on the one hand, and between religious texts, cultures, and histories on the other, both of which we must learn to do in order to challenge oppressive readings of Islam.

We also must learn to read the Qur’an for its “best meanings,” as the Qur’an itself tells us to do. Such an injunction clearly recognizes that we can read a text in multiple ways but that not all readings of it may be equally appropriate. And, indeed, the Qur’an specifies some criteria for judging between the contextual legitimacy of different readings.

So, our own religion obliges us to define its reality in ever better ways and also to contest militaristic, misogynistic, and oppressive readings of it. (I’m assuming that such readings can’t possibly be the best, unless, of course, we are willing to embrace a completely depraved view of God as oppressive and misogynistic.)

Although I reject the view that all Muslims are responsible for the events of 9/11, I do feel that we all need to challenge interpretive extremism rather than ignoring it or trying to wash our hands off it. I know some Muslims believe that such problems will disappear if we personalize religion, as in the West. I feel this is just an excuse for evading communal responsibility in the name of an enlightened secularism. As we’ve learned from history, personalizing religion has not done away with extremism. It has merely sanctified the myth that what I do with my religious beliefs does not concern others.

I believe a dialogue among Muslims is long overdue, and not just because of 9/11. That is something we owe ourselves, not average Americans.

This is an edited version of a talk Dr Barlas gave at Yale

Asma Barlas is associate professor and chair of Politics and director of the Center for the Study of Culture, Race, and Ethnicity, Ithaca College, New York

Shankar,

The richness of rules in such a diverse systems consisting of mullahs and qazis, as opposed to theoretical democracy,essentially lead to its downfall. There seems to be a critical mass. Below the critical point mullahism/islamism is able to acheive a crude functionality but above that critical point the system gains self-referential characteristics and develops chronic incompleteness. Either the religion has facilities below the critical point and thus is so poor in what it can express that no self-referential expressions are possible (and the notion of truth is not definable within that context) or the religion is powerful enough to talk about itself incurring self-referentialism and thus paradoxes and undecidable rules.

#429 Shammi

I read that some gujratis in great britain are suing the gujrat govt. Hope they`ll succeed in at least preventing Modi from leaving india. Vajpayee should be too if possible.

The more i think about it tho, faulting Modi & Vajpayee may not be a wise thing in the long run. What we have is a sickness that afflicts hindus as a whole - that of covert/overt sympathy to thugs, the self-serving feeling that we are a tolerant people and therfore if we act inhumanely it must be the fault of the other guy - that will not be cured by removing a person or two. OTOH, it may lull us into thinking that the problem has been solved. Hindu society needs a major clean up as it did 200 years ago when sati was legally banned.

Prem

Pakistanis as inheritors of Brahmanical racism? I think Pakistanis should remain open to this charge - and view it as something negative. I`m not suggesting pleading guilty, but lets be open to it, lets examine it - it can only help us. I certainly will agree that racism and caste remain operational on many levels of Pakistani society. I join you or any other persons(s) in sensitizing Pakistani society to attitudes that devalue persons based on social or religious values attributed to skin color or complexion. A case in point is this skin lightening creams - I can`t think of a more demeaning and objectionable value to allow in a society - even under the guise of a cosmetic. In Pakistan, especially, first and always, the idea of the equality of persons, as a religious value, as an ethical value, as a civic value, a component of any individual`s moral sense - must be a given. And it is true that this is not the case. One person has said Pakistani attitudes towards Hindus are condesending - I must admit I don`t like that word because of how subjective and elastic it can be - but I remain open to examining if racism or bigotry can be said to characterize Pakistani society, or better still, to what degree? Any way one looks at the question of racism based on skin color - one must be clear about one`s own values, as a matter of conscience and the kinds of values institutions promote in society (to the degree that they do) and as long as one holds on to values operational in some other culture and does not critically examine these values, one cannot make free choices of conscience.

1 Pakistani soldier equals 10 Indians - is this not racism? This notion is not based on racism but on the concept of Quality Vs Quantity. It was then and it is now, Pakistan`s experence that she is and will be, out numbered, that the only way to counter this, is superior quality of training and equipment - American training and equipment helped - this is basically the rational of American alliances - With the Russsians you got big numbers of men in arms and lots of equipment - with the Americans you get superior training resulting in less numbers of men under arms, less but more capable equipment - characterizing this as rascism is a stretch even elasticity cannot pardon - it is more clearly a case of responding to superior numbers of men and arms and I think if one is honest, one has to acknowledge that Pakistan has been very conscious of Quality vs Quantity - making a virtue out of necessity, when possible.

Questions about varna? I hope you will make the effort to answer these questions and ask other questions along this line - and I encourage you to drop the argument that varna, caste, color consciousness is a Dalit thing - it isn`t. It`s a difficult case to make, if one accepts the Aryan stuff, that varna as color was meaningless? Did it evolve into other things or did it`s meaning evolve? is ther such a thing as hermenutics in Hinduism?

Back to Gujrat - I hope you and others will not allow Gujrat to be eclipsed but will seek to explore the connection between those events and the ideas operational in society - have you been able to make any sense of what`s happening there? Zafar finds it unreasoning and or irrational and I`ve been reading at least 5 Indian papers including the editorial and opinion features - and am still clueless - The ``pilgrims`` gained a reputation on the trip back - provocations at the train stations - attacks on the train - What happened afterwards? some reports point that retaliation came 24 hours laters - but how did it become statewide, how did it come to involve state organs in just 24 hours? Police and intelligence services must have picked up on the organizational activity required to get people into the streets? What mechanisms was used to bring state machinery on the side of the retaliators? Why didn`t or why wasn`t the opposition in the state in any condition to galvanize any kind of resistance? When did the central government come to know about the magnitude of the riots? Who responded how? By which laws? Why was there no state of emergency or curfew or shoot on sight? who is responsible for what? Which law, what laws? It`s all too curious, the armed forces are massed on the border, there is a potential for not just war but things going south in a big way - and an entire state, as big as a country is up in flames, not just for a day or two but weeks - while everyone is pointing fingers at one another, two hundred thousand troops are defacating in the open in the desert, while an additional seven hundred thousand face a professional army on the other side and an internal freedom movement - and the racist enemy is supposed to be impressed? It`s all so surreal? Can someone please make any sense of this?

Prem #435
See, its impossible to undersell the genus Indian women even to make a worthwhile/valid point. Wasn`t there was a time after Hum Aapke Hain Kaun when there was this Pakistani slogan ``Kashmir le lo, Madhuri de do``. :).

Shankar

Review my post to you - I said to you that your angry and defensive post was something to the effect of a: ``first response or reaction`` - that sooner or later you would get it - sooner or later you would have to deal with the heart of the post.

Embarassed to be Hindu? - I could not be less interested - What`s bugging me about this ``sorry, embarassed`` bit is that it is not going into the ACTION phase - soon, it will be another event in a long series of events - we`ll all get used to it - ``just one of those things`` - and if it does become that, we both know it will happen again and again and it will have consequences almost all Indian nationalists would want to avoid -

And I must tell you that it worries me that I and I think most on Chowk, do not understand the how and why of whole thing - and for whatever reason, seem unable to get to the ``how and why``.

On Caste - I discussed this someone else who has not posted on this board and their opinion was that caste has nothing to do with it - that there was just too much bad blood between the two antagonist/protagonist - in my opinion it does - how? Caste allows the inequality to function, not as merely economic or class structure but in a more fundamental way - rooted in Jaat/Zaat (in a biological basis or sense) -``Babar ki aulaad`` are not just ``invaders``, their non-Indianness is deeply connected to their not being, Hindus - that is, they are outside the framework of most Indians - and caste no longer functions to bind in ways benign to Hindus Indians - but, as a potent force of religious, racial (in a biological Zaat/Jaat sense) and nationalistic discrimination. I think this point deserves attention either after or simultaneously with the effort to understand how and why of the events in Gujrat and have an end put to them.

Reply Nagnatheshwar # 430

“Now its no news that communal riots is like a switch on & switch off...thanks to Laloo Yadav.Bihar was endemic for riots thanks to him Bagalpur was the last major one in that part of the country .For 15 years approx.Laloo not out of goodnes of heart but for MY Muslim Yadav alliance has kept his end of the bargain by arresting Advani in 89 just as he entered his borders arresting him .That done everything else was simbly easy.”

In so many words, we have the technology…but at times it benefits some people for us not to use it.

Solution...

re:Reply #: 436

Prem,

I had written at length on the caste system in another forum. I am no expert but i have read interpretations of caste system by various authorities. Caste system was initially (pre-vedic times when settlers came and settled in the area of modern Sindh)based on vocation. Brahmins were those engaged in scholarly work and interpretation of scriptures, ethics, social morals etc. Hence, a number of texts in those times including the now infamous Manusmriti.

Brahmins had an unfair advantage as they came to dominate all walks of life. Their help was needed from the time a baby was born, during marriage, during death ceremony etc.

Warrior race, though second to the brahmins in hierarchy, was in no way subservient. Brahmins were respected and held in awe for their spirituality and scholarship. However, king`s decision was still final and no brahmin of the day could overrule him. There were often frictions between the two (read the fascinating story of clash of Devayani, Sage Shukra`s daughter against Sharmishta, the princess in the chapter on Yayati in Mahabharata).

With time, traders (Vaishyas)became a powerful force. They supported Ashoka in his quest for power. Buddhism rose to power with tremendous support from this class. Shudras were mostly prisoners of wars. They were not outcastes but did menial jobs.

In the beginning, there was a free mobility between the castes (Veda Vyasa and Valmiki were both non-brahmins by birth but attained great stature and came to be recognised as brahmins ie knower of truth). Much later, it became hierarchial. Caste system, in an effort at self-preservation, became much more rigid during the muslim rule. For eg. many Rajput princesses preferred Sati to humiliation by muslim rulers. No brahmin ever forced this on them. It was a decision taken out of desperation. Rani Padmini`s fame only reinforced this tradition.

Varna in sanskrit means both color and class. Sanskrit is a rich language. You can talk about the same thing in different ways. For eg Sun can be talked of in sanskrit as Surya, Aditya, or Bhaskara etc. One word can have two different meanings depending on the context in which the word is used. For eg. the word Dwija (twice-born)may be used for both a brahmin and a bird.

Aryan Invasion Theory itself is being questioned today. If all brahmins were fair colored, why is one of my cousins as dark as an Afro-American. Such classification has been used by European Indologists, who were biased in the first place. However, the caste system that India had in place in 19th century (even today)is clearly discriminatory. It is not just brahmin vs rest. The discrimination exists at all levels and across all castes.

Sridhar

An brief informational note on ``Varna.``

I think a few lines on this subject are necessary. If people want to discuss this subject in greater detail, I will be happy to join them later. As of now, my intention is to merely make a statement, not to enter into any ``my religion is this,`` ``your religion is that`` debate.

It is argued that varna means color. Therefore the varna system is a system based on skin color. This theory fits well with the observation that Aryans were a fairer people who, probably, subjugated the local darker-skinned population. Then Aryans imposed a system of discrimination based on color, in which the local darker people were assigned an inferior position of sudras.

This theory has been propagated most forcefully by dalit scholars, who have equated caste with racism. Personally, I have had no issues with that approach. I believe that the system of caste is so evil that ANY stick to beat it with is justified. Since it MY religion we are dealing with, I don`t mind people using false arguments to set things right. In fact, I am delighted Dalits were able to use the conference against racism as an opportunity to further their cause and highlight their situation. The more hammering we get on this issue, the better it is for us. But I will never take recourse to false arguments to score points with or distort other religions.

Unfortunately, that is precisely what is happening. Writings and opinions of Dalits - that many of us do not contest simply as a mark of respect for the long suffering Dalits - are taken by the bigots of other religions to strengthen their shaky arguments.

What does Varna mean?

It probably is useless for people to wrap their minds around Sanskrit terms and Indian constructs unless they develop a facility for broad, abstract, symbolic thinking. Most Sanskrit terms have an array of meanings, and are deployed in a variety of ways, with different contextual emphases.

Let me ask people a few questions:

I. If varna is used in the sense of color (only one of the word`s meanings), then what does the term ``avarna`` mean?

2. If varna is used in the sense of color, then what is the relationship of Upnayana ceremony and ``color?``

3. If varna is used in the sense of color, when what is the relationship of ``color`` with sanyas ashrama?

4. If varna is used in the sense of color, then how were the color ``gradations`` determined between A brahmin and a Khastriya, A kshatriya and a vaishya? What color distinctions existed between a vaishya and a sudra?

5. If varna is used in the sense of color, when how does one connect color to sanskara and to dharma?

6. If varna is a system of color gradation then what explains the fact that within the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, the only truly WHITE god - Brahma is assumed to be cursed and is NEVER worshipped by Hindus. Or, that Shiva is often depicted as dark, while Vishna takes human forms in a dark complexion? Rama is dark. Krishna is dark.

7. If varna is used in the sense of color, and if color is so important to Hindu consciousness, then how on earth is Shakara - the greatest Hindu philosopher and religious leader of the last thousand years - as dark as they come?!

It will be very strange to accuse Christians of being white supremacists if they always depicted Jesus Christ as a black, and if their pope was a black person.

I would love to know answers to these questions. I don`t, and Hindus in general shouldn`t, debate these points with Dalits. Dalits have been victimized enough. We should let them heal themselves in whatever way they see best. But that doesn`t mean that non Dalits should be given the same pass to advance their own narrow agendas.

{Jesus! I detest feeling like a religious teacher}

re: Shankar # 434

``What got me angry was that you were implying & stating (ie if I understand your posts & read between the lines) that because of their religion, hindus are all inherently ``morally nuetered`` & bigots, most of them. If I misunderstood what you are saying, I apologise. But if I`m on the mark,then I have a very serious problem with you.``

Precisely. Either hobbyty didn`t mean that, or doesn`t know a thing about Hinduism today. I had responded to hobbyty`s post, but chowk seems to have lost that response. I am resubmitting it so hobbyty can see that charges of racism can not be made only against Indians and Hindus.

re: hobbyty # 409

You accuse Hindus of racism, but the only people I see as openly racist bigots are Pakistanis (correct me if I am wrong).

Your friend Urstruly # 408 has a compulsive need to call Sadna ``Kali Mata.`` Earlier, your nationals have resorted to responding to her by describing her imagined physical features because in their eyes she belongs to some race not as ``beautiful`` as theirs. We have had Pakistanis going into obscene ecstasies over how ``white`` their daughters are, and they must marry ``whiter`` people to improve their gene-pool! We have here grown up Pakistanis actually believing they form some ``brave martial races`` who, because of their physical differences, have a military edge over Indians or Bengalis or whosoever else. How delusional can one get!

Dear Hobbyty, listen to the truth. One of the reasons, Pakistani military repeatedly got into wars with India has been that there was (I hope there is not anymore, although romair constantly proves otherwise) institutionalized structural and cultural racism in Pakistani military eating into its intellect as a cancer. Jesus! What a moron one has to be to believe ``One muslim (read Pakistani) is equal to ten Hindus (read Indian, for that is how Pakistani military sees its simple world). What is more, your military did not even spare its own majority population - Bengalis - for the crime of not being white and fair! It is the same mindset - a racist minority trying to lord over the majority. You, hobbyty, are the true inheritors of racist brahaminism today. Same exclusivist dogma, same fascism.

There is a lot of stupid color consciousness on both sides of the border, but when it comes to modern-day racism, you guys take the bakery. In India, the rise of the south and the political empowerment of dalits is slowly but surely churning up the entire color scene. The number of so-called ``fairer`` north Indian girls marrying ``darker`` Indians men from the south has sky-rocketed, even though language remains a barrier. On a personal basis, I have become disgusted with this notion of ``whiteness`` and hope that India becomes darker by the day. That will be a way to teach these ``white`` wallas a lesson.

The point, hobbyty, is that racism is a curse, Indian or Pakistani. There are lots of Indian morons who run after ``fair`` or ``white`` Indian/foreign girls; kowtow to ``white`` men; but one has to be particularly cussed to blame such attitudes only on Indians or Hinduism. Particularly, when all the evidence on Chowk and elsewhere points to the contrary.

Again, your mixing up of caste and varna and color is silly, no matter what you might have read on some websites.

hobbyty,

{{no one, certainly not any chowkie, has any idea why it happened and why it was not or could not be stopped; that interests me more than inadequate quality of my call to action post.}}

Agreed. However, the consensus of opinion in the overwhelming majority of Chowkies, is that we are embarrassed to be hindu & Indian today. That our religion & India`s politics is hijacked by the BJP & especially the RSS wing. Just like a lot of muslims are ashamed that their religion is hijacked by the jehadis.

Even people who hardly ever agrees with me (Saxena) agrees that he`s embarrassed. I was disillusioned by the BJP & have been cursing them on Chowk, ever since I came here. We`re hoping with (much confidence) that the BJP will be trounced in the next religion because the majority of hindus in India will vote against it. If our hopes dont come true, we will be even more dissappointed.

What got me angry was that you were implying & stating (ie if I understand your posts & read between the lines) that because of their religion, hindus are all inherently ``morally nuetered`` & bigots, most of them. If I misunderstood what you are saying, I apologise. But if I`m on the mark,then I have a very serious problem with you.

Hobbyty,

One additional, serious, issue to help us understand where you come from. You quoted Marianne Pearl`s wonderful, moving, deeply human words. She is a remarkable, delightful, admirable lady. May we be blessed with many many more of her kind. I hope you will agree.

The basic moral dictums guiding Marianne Pearl`s behavior, IMO, were:

-we should not hold grudges against those who might have hurt us. As human beings we should seek to forgive others.

-we should bring people from different backgrounds together in order to forge a common human brotherhood/sisterhood, not separate human beings into isolated, cultist communities, each out for itself.

Do you share these ideals? I very much hope you do.

re: hobbyty # 428

Hobbyty, it is certaily possible that we Indians, or I in particular, do not understand the nature of social dynamics as well as you do. Still, don`t you think it would be IRRATIONAL for us to take your advice at all unless you (1) offered the same advice to Indians/Hindus that you offer to Pakistanis/Muslims; and (2) were a person of goodwill?

Think of it logically. Let us assume that you are a brilliant man. As a brilliant man, you have expressed your desire that Pakistan (your country) be strengthened and India (not your country) break up. You also also made clear that you are an Islamist interested in the ``unity and welfare`` of ``all Muslims.`` Unless I missed it, you have made no such statement about your desire for the ``unity and welfare`` of ``all Hindus.``

Under these conditions, it will NOT be rational for Indians or Hindus to follow what you tell us. It WILL be rational for us to follow what you tell Pakistanis and Muslims.

All is not lost. You could still be extremely helpful, and influential, if you could make statements such as -

As I emphatically tell our Pakistanis, you Indians should ....

As I emphatically tell our Muslims, you Hindus should....

I am sure many Indians will take those pieces of advice very seriously.

Regards.

Zafar and Dost,

Both of you seem to have put your finger on some key issues. As soon as I heard of the train incident, my heart sank in fear of the riots that might break out, particularly in a place like Lucknow where we have such a strong presence of both Hindus and Muslims. Luckily, amazingly good sense among common people, proactive steps by the administration, and God`s grace all combined to keep Lucknow, like most other places, peaceful.

In Gujarat, two related and destructive effects came together: (1) Very high degree of communalization at the level of the common man, and (2) passing of the state power in the hand of a religious fascist. The results were tragic and disastrous; and are a wake up call to all secularists. All of us were becoming too sanguine, assuming that the virus of communalism was slowly dying away a natural death. We overlooked the fact that while the poison of communalism was ebbing on one hand, it was being piled mile high, once again, by neo-fascists in power.

General Appeal to Indians -

I see some people still discussing ``who did it first?`` We CAN NOT think along those lines. If merely a couple of people from both communities had died, it would make sense to ask which of those people started the fire. We are far beyond that stage. We must understand the structural and deeper reasons that led this enormous tragedy on both sides.

There is another important reason why ``whose fault was it?`` kind of discussion is unhealthy for all Indians. This kind of argumentation always ends up as if we were JUSTIFYING one kind of barbaric behavior or another. And there can be no justification at all. Can there be ANY justification for the burning down of that train? Can there be ANY justification for the mass murders that followed? None. When we begin to ``justify`` one or the other, we show our own bias. It is time to rise above our biases.

Re: Zafar Al Talib

``...We have no right to be accepted as civilised people until we learn to respect the human rights of our people before we are forced to do so by some international agency...``

The more I read about Gujarat, the more ashamed I am of being an India and a Hindu. I think that if the BJP do not clean up their act, and find the guilty (there are so many in Gujarat) then some sort of international condemnation of the Gujarat govt. and/or Indian govt. is in order. I will support such a move, because I know that the Indian government is VERY sensitive to such condemnation. I won`t be very happy doing so, but I feel morally bound to do so because it may save somebody`s life -- and that is more precious than India`s prestige. UK Gujaratis have already initiated legal proceedings against Modi for genocide (he can`t go to EU anymore without expecting trouble) -- and it is time that the BJP leadership clean up their house.

The BJP (through Modi, Bajrang Dal, VHP, RSS) has killed innocents and wounded India, and I am very angry. They have breached public trust. I once supported the BJP after being disillusioned by the instability of the left/center governments -- but I am regretting my naivette.

I think that there is a lot of work ahead of us in changing people`s hearts and minds -- the BJP and the Sangh Parivar have spread a lot of poison. I implore Indians to visit some India-based Internet boards and counter the hate that is to be found there.

Prem

You are confused and misrepresent about what I tell Muslims or what I think Muslims and Islam should do or think. You cannot seem to get past your one theory, one model, fits all approach - and I can see why you would have a problem discerning multiplcity of positions in a complex environment. However; if you think I am in error and you want an explnation, especially on the positions I have taken on general isssue on Islam, I would welcome the opportunity to the record straight.

On Irony - I don`t see any irony, but I do see a more practiced and talented hand in her piece - Marianne`s piece is a call to action, is was mine. However; I was mistaken, wrong, to to be as emohatic as I came across and was wrong to not allow for Hindu Indians to see their interest in joining my call to action. All hindu Indians saw was what that I made no distinction between caste and the Hindu religion - thus Hindu Indians could not go past what they percieved as an unjustified attack on the religion itself. This was certainly my wrong and I admit it.

In my opinion, You have not proceeded as yet to the ``call to action`` part - I don`t know about you, but I would wager, you are about as clueless about why the events in Gujrat happened and why they continue to happen and why all efforts to arrest this development seem to not meet with any success. Dost has begun to discuss it but as the rest of us, does not really understand how it could happen, is still in the condemnation phase -- I think it is incredible that after more than two months, no one, certainly not any chowkie, has any idea why it happened and why it was not or could not be stopped; that interests me more than inadequate quality of my call to action post.

Reply Dost-Mittar # 423

``In fact I am somewhat pleasantly surprised that it was limited to Gujarat; I even expected it to go beyond Gujarat and especially to Bombay, which, thank Bhagwan (and maybe Bal Thackeray), has been quiet.``

Dost-Mittarji

Bombay was peaceful because there were 2000 (two thousand) preventive arrests made before the March 15 bandh. (Sainiks, etc. Thackeray didn`t like it.)

Similarly, Kutch was largely peaceful because of preventive, or prompt in the case of instigation, arrests made of (you guessed it) BJP and VHP workers.

Where the Govt fulfilled its Raj Dharm there was no violence. Something to think about.

Zafar

To me, this made the handling of the aftermath even more unforgivable. Since the reaction could have been easily anticipated, the govt. should have taken immediate steps to douse the fires as soon as they started; instead the rulers added fuel to the fire by their incendiary statements. THIS I find unforgivable, especially since this is not an exception but the general reaction to any sectarian violence in India. We have no right to be accepted as civilised people until we learn to respect the human rights of our people before we are forced to do so by some international agency.

Hobbyty,

Did you ever ask yourself why you did not do what Mariane Pearl did? She quoted from Quran to reach out to Muslims - a community whose members had harmed her. Did you quote from the Gita or Ramayan or the Vedas to similarly appeal to the positive side of the Hindus? What you did was to offer us bigotted theories about things you know nothing of, revealing a shocking ignorance of a tradition about which one would have expected you to know at least a little bit.

Hobbyty, this blinkered world-view is hurting you more than it is hurting anybody else.

re: hobbyty # 421

Does the utter irony of your posting Mariane Pearl`s letter escape you?! Here she is, going out of her way, to show respect to a tradition that has screwed her up, and asking for a positive co-operative moving forward! She knows she can not blame all Muslims for what some Muslims did to her. She is NOT asking all Christians to gang up and ``unite`` against all infidel Muslims. And what does Hobbyty tell Muslims??

- That the whole world is screwing Muslims.

- That Muslims should unite to take on the world.

- That they should go back to the Islam.

- To move forward is to turn into Islamists, to isolate themselves. You call that identity!!

It sounds very much like Jihadis quoting Gandhi!!

That is why I said, hobbyty...one doesn`t know what you stand for... Is it ``to forgive our enemies`` as Marianne Pearl has so eloquently done?

Dost Mitter

I agree with your last lines. I am convinced that our national and reilgious self-interests can only be promoted, protected, and made to flourish unless we transcend bigotry against the self-interest (of same) of the other. That goal cannot be achived unless we are united and vocal against bigotry. Our voice against bigotry must be at least as loud as that of bigotry if not louder. Unfortunately, it is us, you and me, who has to do it. No one else would do the work which is ours.

re: dost-mittar

...the patience you and others display with retards like hobbyty is admirable...let alone reading his garbage, you actually think about it and respond...where does one buy such patience?...i`ll take 2 pounds of it please...

Dost Mittar, Shankar, Prem, Alpha, Roohi, Ralph

Here is how I should have invited the call to ACTION:

``I`m told there is a hadith, a saying of the Prophet Muhammad, that tells Muslims that if they see an evil they should act to remove the evil. If they cannot do that, they should speak against the evil. If not that, then they must condemn the evil in their hearts. The strongest expression, however, is to act against evil.``

``April 19, 2002

The Public Life of Private Struggles

By MARIANE PEARL

PARIS — I first learned about Pakistan`s silent majority at a time when most of the world found itself stunned and speechless at the killing of thousands on Sept. 11.

My husband, Danny, and I had arrived in Pakistan just after the attacks. Pakistan was part of his beat as South Asia bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal. We had no apprehensions about being in a Muslim country. We had both traveled throughout the Muslim world. Danny had just spent five years covering the Middle East. As a girl, I had spent my holidays with a friend in Algeria, and Islam, the second-largest religion in France, was very much a part of my childhood at home in Paris.

Danny and I both wished we had been visiting Pakistan in a quieter time. But there we were. At our first meeting we heard from a group of women who advised the city of Karachi. They expressed anger at Western reporters for blaming the attacks on Muslim fundamentalists and Osama bin Laden without proof. They asked us to think carefully about our responsibilities as Westerners and as journalists. They said they were lovers of peace and were deeply offended by what they perceived as the West`s attack on Islam.

Next we traveled to Islamabad. At the Marriott hotel, you could find every news outlet, from CNN to Serbian radio. The journalists were there to cover a war they could not, as yet, actually see. They speculated on the possibility of a coup. Members of fundamentalist Muslim groups demonstrated before the Marriott to display their anger. You could take a close shot of the protesters as they shouted against America and tell the public back home that Pakistan was on the verge of a civil war. Or you could hunt for another opinion, that of the moderates who were said to be the democratic majority.

Danny and I were told that most people did not share the opinions of fundamentalists. But this reassuring voice of the moderate majority was nowhere to be seen or heard.

Danny and I kept talking with all sorts of people in Pakistan. These conversations were honest and sincere; our interlocutors talked about what they really felt. Some blamed their country`s troubles on corruption and previous regimes. Others blamed India or the West, and sometimes both. All expressed shame and anger at how terrorists and their supporters had stolen Islam for their own purposes by promoting hatred and violence. I, too, felt this sorrow for Islam, though as a non-Muslim, and so did Danny.

During the months that Danny and I spent in Pakistan, from Peshawar to Islamabad and then Karachi, I became convinced that all of us have to take responsibility for what is happening in the world if we want to eradicate the causes of terrorism, fascism and similar ideologies. Something new has to happen, and everyday people have to be part of the process.

Both Danny and I knew better than to believe what the fundamentalists were telling us about jihad. Jihad is the name of a process that can be undertaken successfully only by a courageous person. A jihadi fights with himself or herself in what I, as a Buddhist, think of as a personal revolution. It doesn`t involve demonstrating in front of TV cameras or murdering innocent people. It is a slow and difficult process in which one seeks to overcome fears, prejudices and limitations to defend justice and do something that we call épanouir in French — allowing our personality to expand and blossom so that we can fully contribute to society at large.

I came to believe that only through such struggle — a true jihad — could Pakistan address the core issues that the fundamentalists use to manipulate people and exploit ignorance. Education, freedom of expression and the alleviation of poverty could no longer be considered a government responsibility alone. Citizens had to find ways to claim and defend their own rights. It was for the people of Pakistan to decide where their country stands in the global arena, and it was for the people of Pakistan to shake off submissiveness and restore their country`s dignity.

Then Danny was kidnapped.

Neighbors shut their windows and front doors to me during this crisis. I cannot really say of what they were afraid. Was it the police? Gossip? Was it some earlier trauma? Was it Pakistan`s intelligence agencies? The terrorists? Themselves?

I prayed that the majority would not remain silent or paralyzed by fears. I prayed that people would come out and defend their faith and country — and defend their own dignity by voicing their rejection of criminals determined to destroy the future of Pakistan and the hope of its citizens to live in peace.

My prayers were realized in part. During this ordeal, I was surrounded by Pakistani and Muslim people as courageous and beautiful as those terrorists appeared ugly and without souls. I can never be grateful enough for their graciousness, a ray of hope in the midst of darkness.

In the five weeks when I waited in Karachi for Danny to come back to me and our unborn son, the Pakistani police reported at least 11 killings of Shiite Muslims in Karachi alone. Those slain were mostly doctors and professionals. Sectarian terrorists were pursuing their work of destruction. They were planting even deeper the seeds of fear in the hearts of people, making the silence of the majority even more painful to hear. Such fear and terror can destroy a society.

When I finally had to acknowledge Danny`s bloody murder, I decided not to leave Pakistan right away. I wanted to show defiance against fear. In those days, absorbing the murder of my husband, I received the most heartfelt letters of support from all over the world. And finally I heard from the majority in Pakistan as it abandoned silence.

Pakistani people wrote to me about their feelings. ``May God give you strength. Danny`s murderers are not Muslim and should be brought to justice.`` They shared their shame with me: ``I am really saddened by the news and astonished that a Pakistani brother can do this.`` There were beautiful letters printed in Karachi`s English-language weekly, the Friday Times. ``Danny Pearl is not just a dead American journalist,`` a writer stated. ``His suffering in our midst has made him a martyr to the Pakistani people. He died because Pakistan`s enemies could not bear to see the country retake the course of tolerance and moderation that its founding father envisaged.``

Then I heard about a Web site in which Pakistanis bravely signed their names to a letter of condolence. They wrote: ``We unequivocally condemn the perpetrators of this enormity: they are a plague to Pakistan, and the majority of her citizens would prefer to see their kind destroyed.`` At last count, the signatories numbered 3,767.

Pakistani letter writers had left aside prejudices and appreciated my husband as an individual. One writer commented, ``Your husband had a great smile — a happy mixture of Pope Paul and Dean Martin.``

Most captured the sentiments of a writer who called Danny`s murder ``a crime against the people of Pakistan.`` These voices give me the strength to believe that the hope of a modern, strong Pakistan still lives and that the people of Pakistan will help me see that justice is done. I`m told there is a hadith, a saying of the Prophet Muhammad, that tells Muslims that if they see an evil they should act to remove the evil. If they cannot do that, they should speak against the evil. If not that, then they must condemn the evil in their hearts.

The strongest expression, however, is to act against evil.

In memory of Danny and for the future of our son, who is almost here, I also want to ask the people of Pakistan to act upon the sentiments they have expressed and build a memorial for Danny in Karachi. I will bring our son to this memorial and tell him this is the land where his father died, but that the people here stood by us so that his death would not be in vain.

Mariane Pearl, a freelance journalist, is writing a book about her husband, Daniel Pearl.``

Reply Roohi # 402

“For those Indians on Chowk who care it is far more useful to chat with Indians on other sites and try and do something constructive for Gujrat (or amongst your own friends, family, uni or work mates) than waste time here.”

Completely right. There is any amount of vileness currently passing for informed opinion on Indian websites and people MUST come out and counter it, otherwise it forms the centre of gravity for discussion rather than the extreme. We need you.

To those of you who already are, thank you, keep it up, don’t be defeated by hate just because it is loud and aggressive.

“and Jai Hind!”

I’m glad somebody finally said that. Jai Hind!

Hobbyty

``Eat my shorts``

Yuck! What was that? And I thought you are an otherwise decent person who can talk decently.

Hamidm as always is right about you. You need aRefresher course in Manners in case you have done Foundational course in this subject.

Regards and have a great day living in your cocoon.

Alpha, Dost, Akash, Shankar, Roohi

These series of post were in the context of trying to make sense of the events in Gujrat - You are correct in pointing out my take with regard to caste. I will not compromise on the issue of caste. It is, in my judgment, pure evil, unredeemable. Yes, that is part of my ideological bias, my sense of morality, of right and wrong.

As to claims of scientific or legal proof - I make no claims of enjoining science or jurisprudence to arrive at my assertions. I did however; claim to make the assertion about caste and it`s ``neutering`` effect, on the my understanding of equality of persons, indeed my ``ideological biases.`` Persons who do not consider other persons their equals, are in my judgment, Ideological biases, intellectually and morally ``neutered.`` I assert that inequality is the bedrock of caste and those who do abide by it, are intellectually and morally ``neutered.``

As to your statement that ``I hope you are not planning to play prosecuting attorney, judge and jury all rolled in one`` - depends, on all issues of my sense of morality, I reserve to myself, the right of prosecutor, judge and jury - and to consider both object and subject when it comes to questioning my ``ideological biases`` and those of others.

As for the statement to Akash and to Dost and to Shankar and now to you: each one of you has responded with defensiveness and indignation. Shankar denies, Akash accuses, Dost rationalizes, you seek correct form, scientific and legal proof. My assertion is born out of an attempt to understand the events in Gujrat. I examined the claims of Democracy, Constitution, Secularism and find that none of these can be said to account for the events and for the fact that these events continue. What can?

In my opinion, caste and muscular Hinduism can. Caste, because it provides the ``ideological biases`` for inequality and muscular Hinduism because it not only supports a violent assertive presence, actually promotes it. If you agree or disagree, it follows that you are making a choice of ``ideological biases`` - Inequality, servitude based on Zaat/Jaat is the line that separates the ideological biases, or sense of morality here. I have made my position clear - of yours Akash`s, Shankars and Dost`s - I was unclear - to what exactly are you objecting? to the ideological biases, a sense of morality that views caste as an evil or the lack of action as a moral failure? Or in your case the lack of scientific and legal proof - is caste a theory of science or a legal theory, did I posit that it was either of these?

These objections and accusations of my displaying religious bigotry confused me and I sought advice to allow someone outside my formal religious and moral sensibility to examine the issue. Their point of view was that I was being too judgmental, given the cultural context of both the events and of Indians themselves. Can one be a little judgmental? Can there be degrees of judgment, degrees of right and wrong, with regard to caste? Does this issue not call for the exercise of judgment?

Others had pointed that the assertion, caste had intellectually and morally ``neutered`` Hindus, is much too broad, what about Hindus who did not hold to caste? Such a statement would not leave any room for those Hindus who do not subscribe to notions of caste but will nevertheless be under attack as Hindus - If the assertion was to induce action, specifically what action could these larger ``Hindus`` take? After all, those responsible for taking action were a small group of politicians - that the response of posters was to what was being perceived as an attack on the religion itself. That the harshness of the language and the call to action has lost in the perception of an attack on Hindusm itself - and therefore counter productive.

I will concede these latter points and retract the broad statement of Hindus being intellectually and morally neutered by caste - and offer an apology for the perception I have left, of an attack on the religion. I cannot, in conscience, retract my judgment about caste, I cannot be true to my conviction without being critical of caste and it`s influence and mode of operation in society. And similarly, I will standby my statement of color consciousness and it`s relationship to caste.

Yet this still leaves me with trying to make some sense of these events in Gujrat - What accounts for it? Why do they continue? Can such events continue without approval? Is it not a disservice to examine the religious basis for these events? if it is, which elements of religion? If it is a sense of nationalism, is it not connected with a religious sensibility? in posing and examining these question, it is undeniable that there is a religious and nationalistic ethos to these events and that it is connected with muscular Hinduism and inequality, that is to say, caste. If you have a more informed take, apprise me. Again, this is not an attack on the religion - I invite honest and sincere examination of the connection between caste, Muscular Hinduism and the events in Gujrat. And again, I acknowledge my assertion was too broad, it`s language harsh and injurious, I regret the injury and offer an apology.

re: Urstooly

{{The only decent Hindus I ever meet are Amway salespersons.}}

in amway or in your cab?

It sounds so hopeless.Is it the end of the road?

Please read:

http://rediff.com/news/2002/apr/18spec.htm

kaali maata

PS. those Hindus who are dying with dysentry of love for Afganis should remember that for ten years they had been on USSR side, they supported USSR invasion, they gave moral supprt to USSR invaders and thus were arm in arm with murderers. Name one neighboring country of India which is not sick and tired of Indians. Your aiding and abetting of genocides in sri lanka, east pakistan, nepal, kashmir, are all on record. In short Hindus are despecable indecent people who devoid self respect and have no sense of honor and fairness. The only decent Hindus I ever meet are Amway salespersons.

PS:
Its the same Paki hypocrisy which has ensured that thousands of innocent Muslims (lets not mention Hindus, who cares about those?)were killed by Pakis or Paki-trained jihadis in Kashmir. Where the hell is the action taken on reexamination of that ideology?

The leaders and so-called elite of Pakistan have made the Pakistani word and stances worth absolutely nothing.

The only value you can attach to Pakistani stances whether Kashmir,. Afghanistan, Central Asia, India is the value of destruction, namely the violence they threaten to /actually perpetuate on you, as in Afghanistan(as in shelter for Al Qaeda, the return of the Taliban and assassination attempts in Kabul), as in settlement of Kashmir and violent attacks in the rest of India).

Or their stances are those of duress, dictated by what they are arm-twisted into, as withdrawal of support to the Taliban, in surrender of sheltered Al Qaeda terrorists to the US or ceasing of support to others both in Afghanistan and India.

Their words and stances are not formed by considered inner conviction arising out of their society and polity, not even pragmatism on their own behalf for themselves or any general principle, the only unchanging principle or common factor or touchstone is the hatred of Hindus. Even genocides like Bangladesh and reducing capital cities to rubble like Kabul through their support by Hekmatyar and others, reducing a society to stone age and oppression of women in Afghanistan, sectarian violence in their own cities, army takeovers, all these are justified to the Paki mind by that unchanging principle, namely hatred of Hindus, which is more important to their well being even than their own national interest/.convictions/religion/humanity whatever.

And there are absolutely no signs that the results of any `re-examinations` are taking shape as in may the hatred of Hindus triumph though we may go under.

Hobbyty #389

Here is what I read in your response to Akash:

``Have I not proved that when when Hindus are exposed to themselves, they only get angrier?

Have I not proved that Hindus are intellectually and morally neutered by caste? After all yur response is to say I hate you, you do no accept resposnibility for the savagery - for which YOU and other Hindus are responsible. Are you not ``neutered`` when you respond with anger instead of responsibility?``

Now those are INTERESTING CLAIMS. I gather that you have a - PROOF - for the above two statements. I am especially interested in that juicy remark about Hindus being `intellectually and morally neutered by caste`. It comprises TWO sub-assertions; firstly that `Hindus` (no qualifiers or quantifiers), are `intellectually or morally neutered` (whatever that may be - precise definitions most welcome); and secondly that this `neutering` has been CAUSED by caste.

So I went back in great curiosity to Hobbyty #371, which appears to be the mother lode of your remarks. Here I found the following:

``Generally speaking, The majority of Hindu indians are intellectually and morally neutered by the curse of caste and as they become more aware of it - they become angrier. Their only recourse has been to turn to the left; imagining that the self hatred can be washed away in a ``clean canvas.`` Other Hindus have embraced a ``Muscular`` Hinduism. who can fail to understanding the self loathing in that ``muscular`` arrival.``

This is certainly a somewhat more cautious statement in some respects - note the quantifying `generally` and the `majority` - while going even further in other respects. Nevertheless, what this amounts to is a bald assertion, a statement perhaps of your SUBJECTIVE IMPRESSIONS, but nothing that could even remotely qualify as a PROOF.

That post also contained some dubious assertions about the motives of the majority of Indian Muslims who write on these boards. But since you have not claimed a PROOF, I will let that pass as merely your subjective evaluation, highly influenced by what I perceive as your ingrained ideological biases.

So back to the claimed PROOF of `intellectual and moral neutering`. I went and read Hobbyty #371, #380, #382, #394, #395, #401 with interest. I found in these posts a great deal of reiteration of your familiar view of the world and the place therein of Hindus, Indians, India`s `democracy`, `secularism` and `enshrined constitution`, `Captive Kashmir`, `Hindu Indians congenitally hostile towards Muslims`, etc. etc. ad nauseam. I also found some significant remarks on caste: ``Caste is a curse because it arrests society, it imprisons minds and souls, it promotes bigotry - it is bigotry!`` [BTW, caste appears to be an idee fixe of yours, does it not - this is far from the first time that you`ve mentioned it in these many months that you`ve posted on Chowk.] But alas, I found neither hide nor hair nor horn of your PROOF.

Now it is perfectly possible that your PROOF lurks in abbreviated form somewhere in these posts - perhaps on the lines of the `proof sketch` that mathematicians use to convey the central ideas to fellow professionals who are assumed to be competent enough to fill in the blanks and work through routine and tedious details. If that is the case, I think you need to be more explicit - remember that many of those who you address on Chowk are intellectual pygmies on Chowk, not towering minds on a par with yours. Please let us know what your premises are, show us all the steps, dot the i`s and cross the t`s.

It is also possible that your PROOF relies on SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS performed under CONTROLLED CONDITIONS. In which case, of course, what you really have is a not a PROOF but a subjectively conceived HYPOTHESIS with a greater or lesser degree of experimental validation. If so, I wonder if you could part with the details here. If you want to refer to a weighty scholarly tome or a journal article by another researcher, by all means do so. If such a publication is forthcoming, that`s OK - I understand that these scientific projects take a while to fructify. Just let me know where I can obtain a prepublication copy of the manuscript.

Or perhaps you mean a proof in the legal sense - `beyond reasonable doubt`; or perhaps

`according to the preponderance of the evidence`. If that is the case, I would still like to see the details of your case, the evidence you present, in systematic fashion. I trust that your witnesses, if any, ar more reliable that Asghar Butt - I doubt that his fantasies in The Nation would be admissible as evidence. And I hope you are not planning to play prosecuting attorney, judge and jury all rolled in one.

Whatever the case, I most humbly implore you to part with the details of your PROOF, so that mere mental midgets like me may partake of your wisdom, and thereby banish the - unworthy suspicion - that your claimed proof is merely a BIASED and SUBJECTIVE PERSONAL IMPRESSION, or worse still, pure HUMBUG.

Your response is eagerly awaited.

``DHIMMIS``: THE PROTECTED MINORITY

by Shirley W. Madany

It was in 1953, in the seaport city of Latakia, Syria that I gradually became aware of how it felt to belong to a minority in a Muslim country. I had married a ``dhimmi,`` the Arabic name given to a member of the ``protected minority.`` This minority included Christians and Jews. (The word ``dhimmi`` is pronounced as if the ``dh`` was the ``th`` in this and that.)

Oh, yes, Christians had certain defined privileges which allowed them to continue to worship in their own church buildings, and have ordained ministers and priests in the Eastern Orthodox churches. They were allowed to look after certain civil affairs in their own courts, etc. But they had grown up accepting restricted freedoms. They must keep their faith to themselves. Most importantly they should never try to share Christ,as Savior,with a Muslim friend. This was against the law. Survival meant compliance. Life was relatively okay if you minded your own business. Conversion was a one-way street for the Muslim. Anyone was welcome to convert to Islam but the reverse was considered a crime punishable by death under the Law of Apostasy.

As a Christian brought up in Canada, my spirit rebelled against such laws. How could one even begin to be a Christian if you could not speak boldly about the faith within you? How could you obey God`s commands if this was the law of the land? It was a contradiction. ``If you confess with your mouth, ``Jesus is Lord,`` and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.`` Romans 10:9. Similar conditions were faced by Peter and John as they stood before the Jewish authorities. They were told not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, `Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God`s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.``` Acts 4: 19,20

It is not difficult to see how this kind of ``protection`` would ultimately change the very personality of an entire group of people. ``The dhimmi`s consciousness--like that of the hostage--moves in a context of vulnerability which annuls the notion of rights and condemns him to exude gratitude for being tolerated. The dhimma is incompatible with the modern principles of inalienable and equal human rights.``

``Dhimmitude`` is a ``historical, political, social and geographical fact.`` And she makes a point to single out that the Islamization of so many nations could not have taken place without the simultaneous working of two factors: ``a conquering militarist minority`` and the betrayals and active cooperation of ambitious renegades.

From time to time one is amazed to hear of some Muslims. They flatly deny reality. One of the Muslim speakers at a Christian-Muslim discussion forum, Dr. Walid Saif of the University of Jordan, had the nerve to make this comment: ``To my mind, even to discuss the subject under the label of `rights of non-Muslims` is misleading and probably counterproductive, because it may imply that non-Muslims` in an Islamic state are signaled out as being a special category with a somehow different status.``

How many Christians on tour in the Holy Land and Egypt have discovered first hand the difficulties faced by the Egyptian Christian when he wants to make some repairs to his church building and finds he does not have permission for the most needy of improvements! Live in a Christian community in any Muslim country and see the truth.

In the early days of their conquest, which the Arabs euphemistically called a ``liberation,`` conversion to Islam was the only sure way to escape the humiliation, and the unjust taxation forced upon them by the application of shari`a law. Later on during the Ottoman occupation of Eastern Europe, the Christian population of these areas, experienced the ruthless snatching of their sons for lifetime service in that special army called the ``janissaries.`` As the author of the book puts it: ``Young Christian children abducted during ``razzias``(raids), allocated within the quint of war booty, or by the ``devshirme`` (recruiting of Christian children), were reduced to slavery and converted to Islam. Subjected to an intense military and religious education, they constituted the Muslim power`s elite troops. Blind and fanatical tools of the sultan, they became the cruelest persecutors of Christians. The janissary incarnates the quintessence of dhimmitude, brought to its perfection.``

Non-Muslims throughout the world hope that as Muslims are exposed to intellectual freedom, they will acknowledge this dark part of their history? While the past cannot be erased, yet recognizing the terrible nature of ``dhimmitude`` should be the basis for building a genuine peaceful co-existence between peoples and nations in a world filled with six billion people. To blindly deny the past is a receipe for disaster and will invite resentment against Muslims.

Hobbyty

``Muslims are Kaka! Now, what about Hindus, is it OK for them to be Kaka as well??``

Not all Muslims are kaka. Some of them definitely are. Similarly, there are, for certain, some kaka Hindus.

We need to take care of our kakas and stop them from behaving like religious bigots feeding on the hatred of others. The days for that kind of thinking - for both Hindus and Muslims - are long gone. This is not just Indian thinking. Many Pakistanis too share in that thought.

The trouble you run into with Hindus and Indians is that it is difficult to know what principles you really stand for. You advance one logic for Hindus, another one Muslims; one system for India, another for Pakistan. You want all Muslims to unite and turn into Islamists. But you don`t want all Hindus to unite and turn into Hindutva vadis. You propagate theories of ``Islam in danger`` and ``Muslims being presecuted.`` But you don`t like some Hindus propagating theories of ``Hinduism in danger`` and ``Hindus being persecuted.`` You want Pakistan to have a centrally strong political system, for Pakistanis to forget their differences. But you don`t want India to have a strong central sytem, and Indians to forget their differences. You asked what Zafar`s ``agenda`` was for his view of history, but you were unwilling to discuss what your agenda was your view of history (surprising, you had such strong views on history even though you acknowledged that Pakistan has destroyed the study of history - so, unless you went out and studied it independently, you couldn`t possibly know history very well). Like all good Islamists and Hindutva vadis you believe that there is a difference between the two, and that while your cause is genuine, theirs is not.

All this is very confusing for even someone like me who admires your intelligence. Certainly, Indians and Hindus will solve their problems. But if you want to be part of the game, you have to establish yourself as a man of integrity and goodwill. Otherwise, it will be irrational for Indians to take your advice seriously. Therefore, when Indians dismiss your protestations it is NOT because they want to rationalize any of their faults and shortcomings, but because they do not see you bringing anything genuine to the table.

This need not be the case. You are an intelligent person. But so long as you keep seeing yourself as a warrior of Islam, you are unlikely to be fair, and unlikely to find acceptance.

PS: BTW you have, a number of times now, equated color consciousness with racism and varna. That is just false. I know there are a lot of websites making that claim, but that still doesn`t make it right.

Roohi,

Yes we all know because we read anguished persons asking all sorts of questions about what these events in India mean.

Is it asking too bloody much to put an end to them? Is it asking too much to get answers as why these events continue?

Responding with childish pride to these is just silly and it`s an abdication of your responsibility. You may not imagine that I or any other sane persons is deriving any benefit form this, the call to Hindus to respond to this is meaningful - you point to many who seek to make it better but are willing to disregard evidence to the contrary - even the premier is on record in Goa - The ruling party itself resists making required changes in Gujrat - Is it because he feels there is a lack of support for him and his party where it counts? Reap as you sow.

Shankar

What is malfunction, Mr.? Can`t deal with facts and can`t deal with opinions? Everything has got to be sugar coated for you to be able to absorb it? It is my opinion that caste is about color and color consicousness related to caste is fact. Every time there is a slight chance that you may make a break through, you allow emotion to pull you back. All right, I`m a bad person. When will you give yourself a chance to ``think`` about the meaning of these events and if Hinduism as it is today, may be related to these events - yes, these events continue. When you and others tire, can no longer hide, you will end up asking the questions I have.

Humsab

Eat my shorts! Democracy, secularism, process! does smoke exist without fire? There is a a major problems brewing that risks enveloping all kinds of persons - something that could effect peoples across borders, as the opoulation to cause trouble was small inside India - all you have to offer is defensiveness? What plantet are you people on?

Kaali Maa Sadna

The genocide of 1-2 Million Afghanis was not due to Paksitan or its policies; it was due to the naked agression of