I am Ashamed and I Apologize
Hemendra K Varma June 6, 2002
#114 Posted by cutandpaste on June 13, 2002 12:37:33 pm
INDIAN EXPRESS
BYWORDS
A word for every occasion
Hindutva’s votaries deploy a distinct vocabulary that leaves others floundering
Mukul Dube
In the world of Hindustani music, a musician speaking of a guru always raises a hand to pinch an earlobe. This is a mark of something between respect and worship.
So hallowed is the name of the teacher that it may not be uttered without taking this precaution. When a Muslim takes the name of Mohammed the Prophet, it is necessary to utter ‘on whom be peace’. The name alone may not be spoken, as that would amount to being disrespectful.
The votaries of Hindutva react in a fashion by coming up with well-rehearsed responses. Their handlers have done their work well. One cannot speak of the infinitely more serious Gujarat events of 2002 without first making a dozen bows in the direction of Godhra.
The gesture will be devoid of meaning, true, it will be just a ritual; but it has been made essential by the howls that arise every time the Gujarat carnage is recalled: ‘‘But what about Godhra?’’
It appears that to the Hindutva mind (though many would argue that that phrase is a contradiction in terms), any attempt to describe the horrors of Gujarat is automatically a defence of what was done in Godhra.
In the same way, no one may speak of Gujarat without being asked, in a practised routine, why there was no condemnation of the forces that forced thousands of innocent Hindus to flee Kashmir?
The innocence of those Hindus is neatly twisted to suggest that the Muslims who were burnt, raped and cut up in Gujarat were essentially wicked beings.
Hindutva holds that any critic of anything in the present time must preface his remarks with an intoned litany of all the evils that have befallen humankind since the beginning of time.
‘Pseudo-secularist’ is the term of opprobrium applied again as an automatic action, by the intellectuals of Hindutva to any Hindu who is dishonest enough intellectually to grant that other religions have a right to exist.
To my knowledge no one has so far explained the prefix ‘pseudo’ in the phrase. Are we to take it that the only ‘real’ secularists are the Hindutva types because although they recognise no religion other than Hinduism, they are willing to tolerate all manner of subdivisions within that paradoxically unitary whole?
Another term which comes out like a gunshot from every Hindutva votary is ‘appeasement’. The Hindu Rashtra ideology holds that non-Hindus, if they must be tolerated, can be tolerated only as sub-human non-citizens with no rights whatsoever. Anyone who is willing to grant them any rights is therefore an ‘appeaser’. Just what is this appeasement? The dictionary definition is not helpful because the word has a distinctly positive connotation.
Can there be any harm in making peace, in making friends, in mollifying, in causing someone to be friendly in return? For Hindutva, clearly there is.
As terms of abuse, Hindutva uses words whose meanings it has not troubled to learn and to which it has therefore given meanings of its own which leave the outsider floundering. This is of a piece with its attempts to replace established bodies of knowledge with its own collections of indefensible half-baked ‘wisdom’ gleaned from dubious and mostly bogus sources.
BYWORDS
A word for every occasion
Hindutva’s votaries deploy a distinct vocabulary that leaves others floundering
Mukul Dube
In the world of Hindustani music, a musician speaking of a guru always raises a hand to pinch an earlobe. This is a mark of something between respect and worship.
So hallowed is the name of the teacher that it may not be uttered without taking this precaution. When a Muslim takes the name of Mohammed the Prophet, it is necessary to utter ‘on whom be peace’. The name alone may not be spoken, as that would amount to being disrespectful.
The votaries of Hindutva react in a fashion by coming up with well-rehearsed responses. Their handlers have done their work well. One cannot speak of the infinitely more serious Gujarat events of 2002 without first making a dozen bows in the direction of Godhra.
The gesture will be devoid of meaning, true, it will be just a ritual; but it has been made essential by the howls that arise every time the Gujarat carnage is recalled: ‘‘But what about Godhra?’’
It appears that to the Hindutva mind (though many would argue that that phrase is a contradiction in terms), any attempt to describe the horrors of Gujarat is automatically a defence of what was done in Godhra.
In the same way, no one may speak of Gujarat without being asked, in a practised routine, why there was no condemnation of the forces that forced thousands of innocent Hindus to flee Kashmir?
The innocence of those Hindus is neatly twisted to suggest that the Muslims who were burnt, raped and cut up in Gujarat were essentially wicked beings.
Hindutva holds that any critic of anything in the present time must preface his remarks with an intoned litany of all the evils that have befallen humankind since the beginning of time.
‘Pseudo-secularist’ is the term of opprobrium applied again as an automatic action, by the intellectuals of Hindutva to any Hindu who is dishonest enough intellectually to grant that other religions have a right to exist.
To my knowledge no one has so far explained the prefix ‘pseudo’ in the phrase. Are we to take it that the only ‘real’ secularists are the Hindutva types because although they recognise no religion other than Hinduism, they are willing to tolerate all manner of subdivisions within that paradoxically unitary whole?
Another term which comes out like a gunshot from every Hindutva votary is ‘appeasement’. The Hindu Rashtra ideology holds that non-Hindus, if they must be tolerated, can be tolerated only as sub-human non-citizens with no rights whatsoever. Anyone who is willing to grant them any rights is therefore an ‘appeaser’. Just what is this appeasement? The dictionary definition is not helpful because the word has a distinctly positive connotation.
Can there be any harm in making peace, in making friends, in mollifying, in causing someone to be friendly in return? For Hindutva, clearly there is.
As terms of abuse, Hindutva uses words whose meanings it has not troubled to learn and to which it has therefore given meanings of its own which leave the outsider floundering. This is of a piece with its attempts to replace established bodies of knowledge with its own collections of indefensible half-baked ‘wisdom’ gleaned from dubious and mostly bogus sources.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#113 Posted by nasah on June 12, 2002 11:37:53 am
MINORITISM: A promoter to Muslim separatism
by R.Upadhyay
“”Even though the concept of minoritism is against the spirit of the pluralistic order of Indian society the over powering and dominant political masters of this country are using it as a political tool for fulfillment of their personal ambitions.””(Upadhyay as quoted by cutandpaste).
“” the concept of minoritism is against the spirit of the pluralistic order of Indian society”” – now that is one of the stupidest sentence I have ever read on minority rights vs pluralism.
Minoritism is not a British invention nor it’s India specific or Muslim specific – it’s a WRINKLE in the otherwise -- pristine fabric of democracy and its overpowering Majoritism – everywhere.
This wrinkle has not been straightened out satisfactorily -- in any democracy -- including the United States.
It’s a WRINKLE caused by -- what may be called -- the TYRANNY of Majoritism -- which essentially says to the minorities –- what is mine is MINE and what is yours is ALSO MINE – because we are in majority -- you’re NOT.
Democracies all over the world are trying to find the iron that will remove this wrinkle – that is how to save from drowning -- the minority rights in the ocean of the majority rights -- to make a society TRULY PLURALISTIC.
by R.Upadhyay
“”Even though the concept of minoritism is against the spirit of the pluralistic order of Indian society the over powering and dominant political masters of this country are using it as a political tool for fulfillment of their personal ambitions.””(Upadhyay as quoted by cutandpaste).
“” the concept of minoritism is against the spirit of the pluralistic order of Indian society”” – now that is one of the stupidest sentence I have ever read on minority rights vs pluralism.
Minoritism is not a British invention nor it’s India specific or Muslim specific – it’s a WRINKLE in the otherwise -- pristine fabric of democracy and its overpowering Majoritism – everywhere.
This wrinkle has not been straightened out satisfactorily -- in any democracy -- including the United States.
It’s a WRINKLE caused by -- what may be called -- the TYRANNY of Majoritism -- which essentially says to the minorities –- what is mine is MINE and what is yours is ALSO MINE – because we are in majority -- you’re NOT.
Democracies all over the world are trying to find the iron that will remove this wrinkle – that is how to save from drowning -- the minority rights in the ocean of the majority rights -- to make a society TRULY PLURALISTIC.
#112 Posted by DRUMZ on June 12, 2002 11:37:53 am
PM: Whats the point in making some lazy comments here and there? At least be able to back something up.
When I mention stupid people, im talking about MOST of YOU, not ALL. See the difference? And Most of my friends are Desi (so there goes ur ``self loathing`` crack). I know people 14 years old who have written poems that are outta this world, 17 year olds who are 10 times deeper then I, so there goes ur narcissist crack. This is too easy...
PS: Why do u assume this internet alter ego. In real life ur quiet, unassuming and delicate, lol. Who are u trying to fool?
When I mention stupid people, im talking about MOST of YOU, not ALL. See the difference? And Most of my friends are Desi (so there goes ur ``self loathing`` crack). I know people 14 years old who have written poems that are outta this world, 17 year olds who are 10 times deeper then I, so there goes ur narcissist crack. This is too easy...
PS: Why do u assume this internet alter ego. In real life ur quiet, unassuming and delicate, lol. Who are u trying to fool?
#110 Posted by cutandpaste on June 11, 2002 4:07:16 pm
11. 06. 2002
MINORITISM: A promoter to Muslim separatism
by R.Upadhyay.
The Gujarat tragedy has once again brought the age old minoritism into focus. There may be multiple causes like social, political, economic and religious behind this problem, but the dangerous game being played by the political class since Independence has caused great harm to the unity and strength of the country. Even though the concept of minoritism is against the spirit of the pluralistic order of Indian society the over powering and dominant political masters of this country are using it as a political tool for fulfillment of their personal ambitions.
The framers of the Indian constitution classified the people of this country between minority and majority on the basis of religion and incorporated certain special privileges and rights to safeguard the interests of the former. The intention was good, but they did not realize that the politicians from both the communities would used it as a hand maid to further their own communal politics and aggravate social tensions. What has happened now is that the constitutional attempt has now become an obstacle to integration!
The concept of minoritism was initially used by the British for their colonial interests but the post-Independence political leadership used it for their vote bank politics. While the conspiracy to play the divisive policy of divide and rule was hatched by the then rulers by granting the status of separate electorate to Muslims in 1909, the post-colonial leadership of the country carried forward this ill-intentioned British legacy for their self seeking political interests. In stead of uniting the people in the wake of partition of the country, the issue was ironically legitimized to work as an extension of the communal award granted to the Indian people by the British.
While promoting a powerful force among Indian Muslims to fight for their share of political power, the British also patronised a section of Indian leaders to counter the forceful nationalist group in the country. This latter group developed a crooked version of secularism by granting special privileges to minority. This privilege to the second largest religious majority of the country helped the anti-majority forces to replay the same divisive game of the British. Such combination of religion and politics not only sidelined the ethical values of Indian society but it generated a national anger among the majority against the vast majority of Muslim minority, who were responsible for partition of the country. The situation gradually turned into a fertile ground for consolidation of majoritarian forces which in turn added further fears in the minds of the minority as the so called secularists created the bogey of insecurity of the minorities.
Indian constitution is loud and clear that there is no discrimination on Indian citizens on account of their faith as all of them are enjoying the rights of full citizenship. Rather minorities in India are accorded more protection with constitutional, legislative, and statutory guarantees along with various national and international obligations. But despite such protection, our experience of last 55 years suggests that the gap of communal mistrust between Hindus and Muslims is gradually widening. Why is this so and what could be done?
It is ironical that the Muslims kept themselves isolated even from other religious minorities in India. They were never found to be aggressively agitated on the anti-Sikh riots in 1984 or the incidents relating to anti Christian agitation in the country. This shows the extreme religious exclusiveness inculcated into them by their leaders.
Let me quote Rafiq Zakaria a noted Muslim scholar, who admitted in his book The Widening Divide,`` a deep study of the last hundred years of British rule has, however, convinced me that at every crucial moment, when unity might have been preserved, it is Muslims, who betrayed; but Hindus cannot escape the blame.``
The term minority has a subjective definition; but no attempt was ever made to define it precisely in the context of the pluralistic order of Indian society. The general interpretation that a minority community means a community, which is numerically less than 50% of the total population of the country may not give justice to inter or intra-religious minority. Hindus in Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Kashmir, Lakshadweep and Punjab states are in minority but they do not have any privilege of being minority there. This would equally apply to many of the castes in different states in India!
Is there no lasting solution to this problem of Muslim minority in India? The answer to this most baffling question lies with Muslim intelligentsia as also the majority community.
Many consider the two nation theory as the main reason behind the widening divide between the two major religious communities in India. Rafiq Zakaria, a noted Muslim scholar remarked in his book The Widening Divide(Penguin Books 1996, page xvii):-`` It is now universally except in Pakistan admitted that two nation theory did great harm to inter-communal harmony.``
The two nation theory has done great harm more to the Muslims in India. At best the theory should have been seen as a tool for partition then and nothing beyond. It needs to be buried deep and never to be resurrected. There is no doubt that a historical wrong has been done to the people of India and the communal division has affected India more than Pakistan..
Humanity may demand that majority must be considerate to allay the fear of insecurity from the minds of the minority. But for this, minority is also expected to create an atmosphere of goodwill with the majority. The secular fabric of the nation can be protected only when religious leaders belonging to both minority and majority draw a line between religion, personal and political life.
Protection does not and should not mean pampering. Some would argue that the security of minority lies with the goodwill of the majority which is the key to create such an atmosphere. Rafiq Zakaria, expressed similar view, which is rather uncommon.. He said in his book entitled The Widening Divide (Penguin Books 1996), ``I believe placed as Indian Muslims are, their well being and security lie in the goodwill of the majority, not in resorting to agitation and violence.`` A similar view expressed by the RSS chief received severe criticism from many quarters.
Conclusion: Fringe groups are present in all communities and the Muslim community is no exception. What is needed is that the Muslim intellectuals should take the lead in resolving the minority problem by letting their brethren to join the mainstream and not display the hypocrisy of trying to act as saviour of the community by actually widening the divide. As said before and we maintain that the two nation theory should be buried once and for all. Those who chose to stay in India are Indians first and Muslims next. There should be nothing like Indian Muslims or Muslim Indians. There is a need to look at the special privileges, whether such provisions are meant to uplift them economically and yet get integrated with the mainstream or whether these privileges perpetuate the division of majority and minority.
MINORITISM: A promoter to Muslim separatism
by R.Upadhyay.
The Gujarat tragedy has once again brought the age old minoritism into focus. There may be multiple causes like social, political, economic and religious behind this problem, but the dangerous game being played by the political class since Independence has caused great harm to the unity and strength of the country. Even though the concept of minoritism is against the spirit of the pluralistic order of Indian society the over powering and dominant political masters of this country are using it as a political tool for fulfillment of their personal ambitions.
The framers of the Indian constitution classified the people of this country between minority and majority on the basis of religion and incorporated certain special privileges and rights to safeguard the interests of the former. The intention was good, but they did not realize that the politicians from both the communities would used it as a hand maid to further their own communal politics and aggravate social tensions. What has happened now is that the constitutional attempt has now become an obstacle to integration!
The concept of minoritism was initially used by the British for their colonial interests but the post-Independence political leadership used it for their vote bank politics. While the conspiracy to play the divisive policy of divide and rule was hatched by the then rulers by granting the status of separate electorate to Muslims in 1909, the post-colonial leadership of the country carried forward this ill-intentioned British legacy for their self seeking political interests. In stead of uniting the people in the wake of partition of the country, the issue was ironically legitimized to work as an extension of the communal award granted to the Indian people by the British.
While promoting a powerful force among Indian Muslims to fight for their share of political power, the British also patronised a section of Indian leaders to counter the forceful nationalist group in the country. This latter group developed a crooked version of secularism by granting special privileges to minority. This privilege to the second largest religious majority of the country helped the anti-majority forces to replay the same divisive game of the British. Such combination of religion and politics not only sidelined the ethical values of Indian society but it generated a national anger among the majority against the vast majority of Muslim minority, who were responsible for partition of the country. The situation gradually turned into a fertile ground for consolidation of majoritarian forces which in turn added further fears in the minds of the minority as the so called secularists created the bogey of insecurity of the minorities.
Indian constitution is loud and clear that there is no discrimination on Indian citizens on account of their faith as all of them are enjoying the rights of full citizenship. Rather minorities in India are accorded more protection with constitutional, legislative, and statutory guarantees along with various national and international obligations. But despite such protection, our experience of last 55 years suggests that the gap of communal mistrust between Hindus and Muslims is gradually widening. Why is this so and what could be done?
It is ironical that the Muslims kept themselves isolated even from other religious minorities in India. They were never found to be aggressively agitated on the anti-Sikh riots in 1984 or the incidents relating to anti Christian agitation in the country. This shows the extreme religious exclusiveness inculcated into them by their leaders.
Let me quote Rafiq Zakaria a noted Muslim scholar, who admitted in his book The Widening Divide,`` a deep study of the last hundred years of British rule has, however, convinced me that at every crucial moment, when unity might have been preserved, it is Muslims, who betrayed; but Hindus cannot escape the blame.``
The term minority has a subjective definition; but no attempt was ever made to define it precisely in the context of the pluralistic order of Indian society. The general interpretation that a minority community means a community, which is numerically less than 50% of the total population of the country may not give justice to inter or intra-religious minority. Hindus in Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Kashmir, Lakshadweep and Punjab states are in minority but they do not have any privilege of being minority there. This would equally apply to many of the castes in different states in India!
Is there no lasting solution to this problem of Muslim minority in India? The answer to this most baffling question lies with Muslim intelligentsia as also the majority community.
Many consider the two nation theory as the main reason behind the widening divide between the two major religious communities in India. Rafiq Zakaria, a noted Muslim scholar remarked in his book The Widening Divide(Penguin Books 1996, page xvii):-`` It is now universally except in Pakistan admitted that two nation theory did great harm to inter-communal harmony.``
The two nation theory has done great harm more to the Muslims in India. At best the theory should have been seen as a tool for partition then and nothing beyond. It needs to be buried deep and never to be resurrected. There is no doubt that a historical wrong has been done to the people of India and the communal division has affected India more than Pakistan..
Humanity may demand that majority must be considerate to allay the fear of insecurity from the minds of the minority. But for this, minority is also expected to create an atmosphere of goodwill with the majority. The secular fabric of the nation can be protected only when religious leaders belonging to both minority and majority draw a line between religion, personal and political life.
Protection does not and should not mean pampering. Some would argue that the security of minority lies with the goodwill of the majority which is the key to create such an atmosphere. Rafiq Zakaria, expressed similar view, which is rather uncommon.. He said in his book entitled The Widening Divide (Penguin Books 1996), ``I believe placed as Indian Muslims are, their well being and security lie in the goodwill of the majority, not in resorting to agitation and violence.`` A similar view expressed by the RSS chief received severe criticism from many quarters.
Conclusion: Fringe groups are present in all communities and the Muslim community is no exception. What is needed is that the Muslim intellectuals should take the lead in resolving the minority problem by letting their brethren to join the mainstream and not display the hypocrisy of trying to act as saviour of the community by actually widening the divide. As said before and we maintain that the two nation theory should be buried once and for all. Those who chose to stay in India are Indians first and Muslims next. There should be nothing like Indian Muslims or Muslim Indians. There is a need to look at the special privileges, whether such provisions are meant to uplift them economically and yet get integrated with the mainstream or whether these privileges perpetuate the division of majority and minority.
#109 Posted by rsridhar on June 11, 2002 4:07:16 pm
re:Reply #: 99
Faiza,
Gujarat has only brought shame to India. I have said this before and i am not tired of repeating it. Today, the safest place for muslims in India might be Bihar, Bengal or South India. No other part in the North is safe. Secular forces need to come together and face this menace.
I used to have a lot of respect for Gujaratis. Many of them are good businessmen. This pogrom has only convinced me that there is a self-destructive streak, which comes from jingoism and new-found prosperity among Gujarati community (especially NRIs). Even any intelligent Gujju should see how much economic ruin this pogrom has brought to Gujarat. I learnt from newspapers the other day that Japanese and many westerners are wary of investing in Gujarat and are turning southwards.
My own brush with this community in US has been distasteful. I, until recently worked in a practice group in Chicago (i am a neonatologist by profession) which was owned by a Gujju. This guy was pathetic to say the least. He was treating medicine like a business and was also into other business ventures. I opted out of that job in just 2 months and am moving to east coast with a big practice group. The biggest threat to India`s secular values comes from this group (both within and outside Gujarat). They seem to have forgotten Gandhi and have imbibed all the wrong values.
Sridhar
Faiza,
Gujarat has only brought shame to India. I have said this before and i am not tired of repeating it. Today, the safest place for muslims in India might be Bihar, Bengal or South India. No other part in the North is safe. Secular forces need to come together and face this menace.
I used to have a lot of respect for Gujaratis. Many of them are good businessmen. This pogrom has only convinced me that there is a self-destructive streak, which comes from jingoism and new-found prosperity among Gujarati community (especially NRIs). Even any intelligent Gujju should see how much economic ruin this pogrom has brought to Gujarat. I learnt from newspapers the other day that Japanese and many westerners are wary of investing in Gujarat and are turning southwards.
My own brush with this community in US has been distasteful. I, until recently worked in a practice group in Chicago (i am a neonatologist by profession) which was owned by a Gujju. This guy was pathetic to say the least. He was treating medicine like a business and was also into other business ventures. I opted out of that job in just 2 months and am moving to east coast with a big practice group. The biggest threat to India`s secular values comes from this group (both within and outside Gujarat). They seem to have forgotten Gandhi and have imbibed all the wrong values.
Sridhar
#108 Posted by sarwar on June 11, 2002 4:07:16 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#107 Posted by sarwar on June 11, 2002 1:56:46 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#106 Posted by sarwar on June 11, 2002 1:56:46 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#105 Posted by ZafarA on June 11, 2002 12:31:39 pm
Reply Stuka # 84
”By the way, are you familiar with the Swaraj party? If that party had been allowed to exist, instead of being demonized by the leftists, we would have had a secular AND rightist alternative to the Congress.”
I thought we do have a Swaraj Party somewhere….or am I confusing it with Samata? Maneka Gandhi is a member?
”By the way, are you familiar with the Swaraj party? If that party had been allowed to exist, instead of being demonized by the leftists, we would have had a secular AND rightist alternative to the Congress.”
I thought we do have a Swaraj Party somewhere….or am I confusing it with Samata? Maneka Gandhi is a member?
#104 Posted by ZafarA on June 11, 2002 12:31:39 pm
Reply Shammi # 85
“What is keeping them [BJP “economics” voters] from defecting to the Congress is Sonya Gandhi. Perpetuating dynastic rule is anathema to them,…”
I suspect that they could cope with dynastic stuff better if it didn’t involve (and allow me to quote Varsha Bhosle here) the Shroud of Turin.
“What is keeping them [BJP “economics” voters] from defecting to the Congress is Sonya Gandhi. Perpetuating dynastic rule is anathema to them,…”
I suspect that they could cope with dynastic stuff better if it didn’t involve (and allow me to quote Varsha Bhosle here) the Shroud of Turin.
#103 Posted by shakir69 on June 11, 2002 12:31:39 pm
Dear Hemendra,
It`s good to know that we have people like yourself are voicing their concern on issues that affect all of us on the sub-continent. It takes a lot to write about painful subjects as you have so eloquently done so. I think we need sane voices on both sides of the border rather than letting extremists (as both countries have more than their fair share of them) hijack what can be viable societies.
warm regards,
Shakir Husain
cameltrdr@yahoo.com
It`s good to know that we have people like yourself are voicing their concern on issues that affect all of us on the sub-continent. It takes a lot to write about painful subjects as you have so eloquently done so. I think we need sane voices on both sides of the border rather than letting extremists (as both countries have more than their fair share of them) hijack what can be viable societies.
warm regards,
Shakir Husain
cameltrdr@yahoo.com
#102 Posted by sadna on June 11, 2002 9:31:48 am
dost-mittar #100
`` Looks like it`s the familiar Indian disease of studying a problem to death without doing anything about it.
Its politicians refusing to give up their power over the law-and-order machinery. Apparently Inderjit Gupta of the CPI when he was Home Minister of India wrote a letter to all state governments asking that the NPC report to be implemented and got no favorable response..
``My solution will be to have a Khalsa Raj in India for two years``
Good idea! Advani will then have to clean many many shoes.
`` Looks like it`s the familiar Indian disease of studying a problem to death without doing anything about it.
Its politicians refusing to give up their power over the law-and-order machinery. Apparently Inderjit Gupta of the CPI when he was Home Minister of India wrote a letter to all state governments asking that the NPC report to be implemented and got no favorable response..
``My solution will be to have a Khalsa Raj in India for two years``
Good idea! Advani will then have to clean many many shoes.
#101 Posted by sadna on June 11, 2002 9:18:36 am
Romair #98
To be an effective opponent of BJP/Vajpayee and co, it doesnot make any sense to fudge facts which are obvious even on this board.
The translation of Vajpayee`s statement by the Outlook matches the bits in Hindi quoted from other sources with one important word omitted by other sources who left out context as well, and may I remind you these words are verifiable :
AlephNull quoting Outlook #90
``You would be amazed to hear, and I too was amazed, that in Singapore some Al-qaida conspirators were caught. Singapore rulers could not even think that Al-qaida would be active in their country, that al-qaida would be conspiring in their country. 15-16 people were caught and the intelligence investigations are on so that the truth can be ascertained. This is happening in Indonesia. This is happening in Malaysia. {{{Wherever there are such Muslims, they do not wish to live together, do not want to mix and mingle with others and instead of spreading their message peacefully, they want to spread their beliefs by terror, by fear, by threatening}}}.
Notice the context and the word `such`. The sentence is incompletely reported by the sources you are quoting:
‘Jahan Jahan Musalman hain ghul milkar nahi rahte hain (wherever there are Muslims they don’t want to live in peace)’.
Based on the Outlook translation there was one extra word AAISE
`Jahan jahan bhi AAISE Musalman hain ghul milkar ..`
(Wherever there are such Muslims, they do not wish to live together, do not want to mix and mingle with others)
‘Auron se ghulna milna nahi chahte. Shantipurna tarike se parchar karne ke bajaye atankwad se dara dhamka kar apne mat ka parchar karna chahte hain ``
matches the Outlook translation:
``they do not wish to live together, do not want to mix and mingle with others and instead of spreading their message peacefully, they want to spread their beliefs by terror, by fear, by threatening``
That Vajpayee was talking negatively of only those Muslims who are bent on violent jihad is obvious even from the context.
As AlephNull says, what he left out was more objectionable than what he said.
To be an effective opponent of BJP/Vajpayee and co, it doesnot make any sense to fudge facts which are obvious even on this board.
The translation of Vajpayee`s statement by the Outlook matches the bits in Hindi quoted from other sources with one important word omitted by other sources who left out context as well, and may I remind you these words are verifiable :
AlephNull quoting Outlook #90
``You would be amazed to hear, and I too was amazed, that in Singapore some Al-qaida conspirators were caught. Singapore rulers could not even think that Al-qaida would be active in their country, that al-qaida would be conspiring in their country. 15-16 people were caught and the intelligence investigations are on so that the truth can be ascertained. This is happening in Indonesia. This is happening in Malaysia. {{{Wherever there are such Muslims, they do not wish to live together, do not want to mix and mingle with others and instead of spreading their message peacefully, they want to spread their beliefs by terror, by fear, by threatening}}}.
Notice the context and the word `such`. The sentence is incompletely reported by the sources you are quoting:
‘Jahan Jahan Musalman hain ghul milkar nahi rahte hain (wherever there are Muslims they don’t want to live in peace)’.
Based on the Outlook translation there was one extra word AAISE
`Jahan jahan bhi AAISE Musalman hain ghul milkar ..`
(Wherever there are such Muslims, they do not wish to live together, do not want to mix and mingle with others)
‘Auron se ghulna milna nahi chahte. Shantipurna tarike se parchar karne ke bajaye atankwad se dara dhamka kar apne mat ka parchar karna chahte hain ``
matches the Outlook translation:
``they do not wish to live together, do not want to mix and mingle with others and instead of spreading their message peacefully, they want to spread their beliefs by terror, by fear, by threatening``
That Vajpayee was talking negatively of only those Muslims who are bent on violent jihad is obvious even from the context.
As AlephNull says, what he left out was more objectionable than what he said.
#100 Posted by Akash on June 11, 2002 2:22:31 am
Dost-Mittar
``Looks like it`s the familiar Indian disease of studying a problem to death without doing anything about it. My solution will be to have a Khalsa Raj in India for two years with the sole mandate of implementing the recommendations of various commissions, committees, taskforces, etc. during the last four decades``
Not a bad idea actually :-) Any Raj would be better than VHP raj or mob raj.
``Looks like it`s the familiar Indian disease of studying a problem to death without doing anything about it. My solution will be to have a Khalsa Raj in India for two years with the sole mandate of implementing the recommendations of various commissions, committees, taskforces, etc. during the last four decades``
Not a bad idea actually :-) Any Raj would be better than VHP raj or mob raj.
#99 Posted by Romair on June 10, 2002 6:34:27 pm
AlphaNull #90: ``The fact is that no Prime Minister of India - least of all, one heading government in coalition with several staunchly secular parties - could make remarks of the kind alleged by Romair and get away with it.``
The party of the Prime Minister of India just coordinated a massacre of over 2000 Muslims (according to international independent reports) in Gujrat. If it can do that, then why woiuld it not say a few derogatory words about them.
``So much for Romair`s disinformatsia.``
I am continously amazed at the lenghts certain Indians will go to to defend the BJP. It is astonishing. This is the same kind of defense people used to present when I quoted directly from the BJP website. In the end, it is upto the Indians to decide what Vajpayee said and didn`t say, since he is their leader. I am just presenting the information.
As a rule, I try to only use Indian and international news sources on my info on India. I follow BBC, Amnesty International, CNN (every now and then), rediff, tehelka and milligazette regularly.
You have conveniently left out all the controversial parts of the speech and have only quoted one article from Outlook India, which tries to put a spin on the speech. I would encourage you to look at all the Indian and international sources which quoted the speech. I am providing some of them below.
Following is what was stated by these sources, regarding Vajpayee`s speech:
``Vajpayee reveals his true colors
CNN.....Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, known to believe in moderation in politics, has now come out openly in support of the Hindu hardliners in his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).....There was nothing accidental about the hard-hitting speech he made at a rally during the party`s National Executive meeting in Goa.
Vajpayee maintained that wherever there were Muslims in the world there was strife and suggested that Hindus had the right to decide the freedom to be allowed to other religions.
``We have allowed Hindus and Muslims to say their prayers,`` the Indian leader said. (http://asia.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/04/18/india.vajpayee/)
``Vajpayee equates Islam with terrorism
Less than a fortnight ago Vajpayee had condemned the killings and the continued riots in Gujarat as a kalank (blot) on India’s face. But now he says: ‘Gujarat mein kya hua? Agar Sabarmati na hota to jo hua who nahi hota (What happened in Gujarat? If the attack on Sabarmati [train] had not taken place, then what followed [anti-Muslim violence] would not have happened). Mr Vajpayee did condemn the aftermath of the train attack at Godhra but hastened to add: Lekin aag lagai kisne? (But who started the fire?).
A statement by the Indian prime minister equating Islam with terrorism continues to cause an unprecedented uproar in the Indian political life, especially among Muslims and secular circles. Vajpayee has been accused of having finally cast off his `moderate` mask which he has carefully donned all these years to present an acceptable face of the Hindu extremists whose political party, the BJP, he leads.
The whole world heard Vajpayee say it live on TV on April 12 in Goa: ‘Jahan Jahan Musalman hain ghul milkar nahi rahte hain (wherever there are Muslims they don’t want to live in peace)’.
And this was just the beginning. Vajpayee went ahead with Muslim-bashing and added, ‘Auron se ghulna milna nahi chahte. Shantipurna tarike se parchar karne ke bajaye atankwad se dara dhamka kar apne mat ka parchar karna chahte hain (They don’t want to mix with others. Instead, they want to preach and propagate their religion by creating fear and terror in the minds of others).`` (http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/01052002/0105200253)
``Muslims don`t want to live in harmony, says Vajpayee
Sheela Bhatt in Panaji
Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had an unpleasant surprise for Muslims on Friday: he came down on the community like a ton of bricks.`` (http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/apr/12bhatt.htm)
There are plenty of other Indian and international sites with similar quotes of the speech.
I have no interest in misinformation. I hope you don`t have any interest in that either. As far as I am concerned the BJP is the worst thing to have happened for India, and the best thing to have happened for Pakistan.
The party of the Prime Minister of India just coordinated a massacre of over 2000 Muslims (according to international independent reports) in Gujrat. If it can do that, then why woiuld it not say a few derogatory words about them.
``So much for Romair`s disinformatsia.``
I am continously amazed at the lenghts certain Indians will go to to defend the BJP. It is astonishing. This is the same kind of defense people used to present when I quoted directly from the BJP website. In the end, it is upto the Indians to decide what Vajpayee said and didn`t say, since he is their leader. I am just presenting the information.
As a rule, I try to only use Indian and international news sources on my info on India. I follow BBC, Amnesty International, CNN (every now and then), rediff, tehelka and milligazette regularly.
You have conveniently left out all the controversial parts of the speech and have only quoted one article from Outlook India, which tries to put a spin on the speech. I would encourage you to look at all the Indian and international sources which quoted the speech. I am providing some of them below.
Following is what was stated by these sources, regarding Vajpayee`s speech:
``Vajpayee reveals his true colors
CNN.....Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, known to believe in moderation in politics, has now come out openly in support of the Hindu hardliners in his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).....There was nothing accidental about the hard-hitting speech he made at a rally during the party`s National Executive meeting in Goa.
Vajpayee maintained that wherever there were Muslims in the world there was strife and suggested that Hindus had the right to decide the freedom to be allowed to other religions.
``We have allowed Hindus and Muslims to say their prayers,`` the Indian leader said. (http://asia.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/04/18/india.vajpayee/)
``Vajpayee equates Islam with terrorism
Less than a fortnight ago Vajpayee had condemned the killings and the continued riots in Gujarat as a kalank (blot) on India’s face. But now he says: ‘Gujarat mein kya hua? Agar Sabarmati na hota to jo hua who nahi hota (What happened in Gujarat? If the attack on Sabarmati [train] had not taken place, then what followed [anti-Muslim violence] would not have happened). Mr Vajpayee did condemn the aftermath of the train attack at Godhra but hastened to add: Lekin aag lagai kisne? (But who started the fire?).
A statement by the Indian prime minister equating Islam with terrorism continues to cause an unprecedented uproar in the Indian political life, especially among Muslims and secular circles. Vajpayee has been accused of having finally cast off his `moderate` mask which he has carefully donned all these years to present an acceptable face of the Hindu extremists whose political party, the BJP, he leads.
The whole world heard Vajpayee say it live on TV on April 12 in Goa: ‘Jahan Jahan Musalman hain ghul milkar nahi rahte hain (wherever there are Muslims they don’t want to live in peace)’.
And this was just the beginning. Vajpayee went ahead with Muslim-bashing and added, ‘Auron se ghulna milna nahi chahte. Shantipurna tarike se parchar karne ke bajaye atankwad se dara dhamka kar apne mat ka parchar karna chahte hain (They don’t want to mix with others. Instead, they want to preach and propagate their religion by creating fear and terror in the minds of others).`` (http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/01052002/0105200253)
``Muslims don`t want to live in harmony, says Vajpayee
Sheela Bhatt in Panaji
Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had an unpleasant surprise for Muslims on Friday: he came down on the community like a ton of bricks.`` (http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/apr/12bhatt.htm)
There are plenty of other Indian and international sites with similar quotes of the speech.
I have no interest in misinformation. I hope you don`t have any interest in that either. As far as I am concerned the BJP is the worst thing to have happened for India, and the best thing to have happened for Pakistan.
#98 Posted by tahmed321 on June 10, 2002 6:34:27 pm
saminashah #78 Feel free to run your questions by me (as you ask) given that my brilliance (as you most kindly note, and which I quickly acknowledge before you change your mind) is right now perched on a chair and not on the road (as you suggest).
On Kissinger: He may have been wrong on Vietnam a few decades back, but I thought his recent article on the Kashmir issue was well-balanced and therefore annoying to chauvinists on both sides of the border. I am however going by the merits of this article alone, not by any opinions I may have formed of him as a person. And any opinion on any person would require an understanding that only close family and friends and enemies and dedicated biographers and the person concerned put together can have. And even then it would be inaccurate and incomplete.
On Kissinger: He may have been wrong on Vietnam a few decades back, but I thought his recent article on the Kashmir issue was well-balanced and therefore annoying to chauvinists on both sides of the border. I am however going by the merits of this article alone, not by any opinions I may have formed of him as a person. And any opinion on any person would require an understanding that only close family and friends and enemies and dedicated biographers and the person concerned put together can have. And even then it would be inaccurate and incomplete.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- masadi: Ras writes "RE: #6... Three Cups of Tea
- Inaara: http://allpoetry.com/poem/3988919
Inaara... Demon - Inaara: I was moved by... Demon
- pmishra2: Thanks, KaalChakra for posting... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- pmishra2: ugh, yet another of... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- captainjohann: Nobody is stopping legal... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- mohar11: Re: # 133 There is... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 37 Parth... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
