Islamic Utopia?

Yasser,

Good to hear from you again. Fill us in with the details. What have you been upto?

need to do away with the notion of ``islamic`` country.

any country that uses religion as the basis of its identity doesn`t have chance.

coming from a predominantly christian neighborhood that despite it`s gawking social inequities has managed to keep any sectarian voilence at bay (at least in the immediate area), it`s hard for me to accept ANY islamic party simply because evidence only points to how the fundos fuk up the harmony rather than promote it.

if christian friends have little loyalty to a nation whose name and slogan are based on a religion that isn`t theirs, rather then putting them down for their action, i prefer putting down the nation that carries that ideology that has lead to it`s citizens (even if few) to feel like `outsiders`.

if promoters of islam can convince the christians and other minorities (within and outside the religion) that islam is a solution and will not be a problem for them- which all present indications state that it is a problem for them, only then can islam, ijtihad and all that you state about modernist islam can be thought of as serious.

yes, like you point out, only actions will change perceptions.

untill then, all thoughts and statements about islam`s unified piety and righteousness and equality in political and social life today are a lie.

``The path to revitalization of the Islamic order lies in the acceptance of modernity``

............that is just not possible - you cannot reconcile antiquity with modernity ......... the silly concept of the islamic order has to be destroyed and replaced with plain old horse sense ..........

``Thank God, we are now realising that our fundoos are not good for the market price of sweet potatoes``.

I say, Yasser, this whole religion thing is so cyclical. Luckily your fundoos & our fundoos have only got access to a few dozen nuclear bombs.

I am getting more worried about the fundoos who seem to have about 12000-15000 nuclear bombs and are currently using their ``acceptance of modernity`` to wage a terror war . . .

All I would say on this board is that when you mix religion with matters of the nation or the state, nothing good will or can come out of it over the long run.

Rozaiba makes some good points. On chowk, it`s absurd to see ana (who interestingly has been using the nick nooralain :))-such a devoted and endearing Pakistani-being informed by the state (not some group like sipah sahaba or whatever) that she is not a full citizen.

This theatre of the absurd becomes positively obscene when people who support such set ups begin to resent even being profiled in other countries....

Really, this whole worldview is so messed up....

khair...

Khaki duds
Mate bearded thugs
Pakistan Paindabad
The nation`s hoist
By its own petard
Pakistan Zindabad
The jackals howl
The wolves they scowl
Where is God
To call the foul?

YLH:
August `47 brought independence, but not freedom. Independence and freedom are very different concepts, and are not synonymous.
I recommend that you read, `What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response` by Bernard Lewis (Oxford University Press) to understand why secularism finds it so hard to strike roots in Islamic countries, and what it portends for Pakistan.

Prem,

I`m not sure I understand you. Are you saying ana & noorlain are the same person?!

I would suggest to you that Mr. Advani is the exact Hindu analog of Mr. Jinnah. Both have taken a ``short-cut`` to power. This is also the reason why it is extremely important that Mr. Advani not be the prime minister after the next election. Inshallah, the BJP which is steadily being crushed will be reduced (once again) to a significant but small party representing conservative north indian hindus.

Both individuals chose demagoguery over substance when it came to the crunch. Without a doubt Mr. Jinnah was a much higher quality individual but when his back was to the wall he carried out the exact equivalent of Advani`s rath yatra in his ``direct action days`` and the fantastical notion of a ``homeland`` for muslims, a community found in every district of undivided india! Exactly as fantastical as the theories of ``hindu grievance`` that Advani has directly and indirectly supported in India and which may in the end destroy Indian democracy.

Once the relationship is clear, the rest of Pakistani history follows straightforwardly. The question for us Indians is whether Indian democracy is robust enough to resist the pakistanization of India with demagogues like Advani and Modi.

YLH:
I agree with Dost-Mittar. Do not pursue unattainable goals (e.g. secular state), it will only lead to frustration. Instead, work for the attainment of an `ideal Islamic state`. That seems to be more in line with the what the majority public opinion in Pakistan seems to want. The matter seems to have been decided, and the issue of secular/non-secular state is for academics only from this point on. As Dost says, if the fools amongst the 3% minorities who cannot reconcile with the fact that they will never become Pakistan`s President, PM, Chief Justice, or a general, then leave them to their fate, or ask them to leave the country.
The only other Muslim country that has tried to chart a secular course with great difficulty, Turkey, did so only after they were convincingly defeated on the battlefield, in the market, and in the laboratory of science by secular countries. It was the failure of their cherished ideals that led to introspection and the abandonment of religious dogma. Even so, the religious right in Turkey is down, but not out.
Pakistan is not in the same situation as Turkey. It`s competitor, India, is not as far ahead of Pakistan as the Europeans were ahead of Turkey even 100 years ago. As long as India does not convincingly forge ahead of Pakistan economically and technologically, the message of the anti-secularists in Pakistan will not be discredited. And that won`t happen for a very long time. In a way, the success of secularists in Pakistan, is dependent upon the success of their brethren in India, and India`s ability to solve its gigantic problems (health, poverty, social equality). (Who said that India and Pakistan are not joined at the hip?). As long as India struggles with these issues, the secularist voice in Pakistan will not be able to find a credible role-model to point to. However, should India succeed in becoming a high-income country, then the military-mullah axis in Pakistan will be completely discredited. Whether even that results in a pursuit of pragmatic policies in Pakistan, is anyone`s guess.

YLH:

A well written article. I especially liked the comparison to the Western world, where the influence of the church grew and then rapidly declined.

I do agree with Dost Mittar however; regardless of the intentions of the creators of Pakistan, it is the people who should define the country. If future generations of Pakistanis want a secular state they will mould one in a democratic system.

If the majority of the present generation of Pakistanis want an Islamic state, it should not be denied by force. If the Mullahs are willing to make a commitment to democracy, then the choice is that of the people.

re: stuka

{If future generations of Pakistanis want a secular state they will mould one in a democratic system.}

...given how many sympathizers of military dictatorships and state religions one finds even amongst the seemingly educated lot (like romair). you have to wonder...if the country truly was sick of dictators and wanted democracy, there has been sufficient time in the past 50 years to have a revolution....

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

dost mittar: It is quite clear and generally agreed that the mullahs gained the majority in the two smaller provinces of Pakistan as a result of curbs placed on the mainstream parties by the military. Ironically enough, religious parties have never - and not even in these latest (military s)elections - had as mass appeal in Pakistan as in India (I dont want to sound like I am merely playing the India-Pakistan oneupmanship game here, and am merely relating what I see as being obvious facts, and the rise of religious extremism in either country is bad news for ALL of us, the ordinary people of Pakistan and India).
We must therefore not allow ourselves to play into the hands of the religious parties (or musharraf) by accepting the canard that the recent elections indicate general acceptance of the islamist ideology. The ideology of the islamic parties violates the basic principles of Islam and the basic rights of the individual and will never find root in Pakistan. Even in Afghanistan (where conservative traditions are far more deeply embedded, and the urban middle class far thinner than Pakistan), the taliban could rule only through force and the support of the pakistani generals.

dear mr mittar:

please let me know the name of the drug you are on because i also want to experience nirvana by going to a place where i can completely escape reality. as an added benefit perhaps, your drug can also enable me to develop powers that will enable me to understand the deepest desires in the hearts and minds of 140 million people. hopefully, your drug can also alter my mind so that i can change my flawed perception of reality. already, i have changed my understanding of the history of pak. until i read your post, i used to think that pakistan was created by the efforts of one of most secular and modern muslim leaders to arise out of any muslim society. however as you point out, he was only ayathullah khomeni in disguise. i wonder what other mind shattering insights your drug will provide? i used to think that the only political movements that have succeeded in pakistan were largely secular in nature. i cant wait to get the religious interpretation on the success of `roti, kapra aur makan`, a slogan championed by a scoth drinking feudal. I would also be interested in finding out how 90% of the voters where showing a desire to live in a religious theocracy by not voting for MMA?

seriously speaking, i would not shake off the drug habit anytime soon. reality might be unpleasant when pakistani society successfully shakes of religious tyranny. reality might be equally unpleasant if mullahs get their way. at least iran and saudi arabia have oil. what will pak count on for survival? something tells me most pakis and this includes western educated religious fascists do not want to another sudan.

mr mittar:

at least my view of history is not formed by listening to the khabarnama.

It is all about money and power and has nothing to do with religion.

First of all I don`t believe that the leaders of the Pakistan movement were envisaging mass migration. Pakistan was not created to be ``the promised land`` for all the muslims of the world. It was simply carved out of India for giving power to the leadership who did not want to share power in a united India with a Hindu majority. The simple fact is that the Muslim minority ruled over the Hindu majority for many years in India and wanted t hold on that belief of superiority when the British left.

The other issue that has been raised is that if the people of Pakistan did not like dictatorships, then why have we not seen a popular uprising or revolution. There are a number of factors that contribute to people not rising up against dictatorships in Pakistan. The single biggest factor is that over 60% of the population comes from one province and the vast majority of the armed forces comes from the same province. Whenever we have a military government the majority province takes control without having to share power with the minority provinces. The other issue is that the public is not under such a state of oppression that they would need to come out on the streets. The final reason being that civilian governments have not really done much for the nation either so that the majority of the populace has become indifferent to civilian or military rule.

re: pakfin

{The single biggest factor is that over 60% of the population comes from one province and the vast majority of the armed forces comes from the same province.}

...isn`t it a little absurd and dangerous if 60% of the people in a country are so close to the military that they can`t see beyond it?...either the military is too damn big, or people really love their distant relatives a lot more than in other parts of the world...

{The other issue is that the public is not under such a state of oppression that they would need to come out on the streets. The final reason being that civilian governments have not really done much for the nation either so that the majority of the populace has become indifferent to civilian or military rule. }

...so the majority does not have a problem with dictatorships, for whatever reason...then why shove it down their throats?...

pakfin (23),

“First of all I don`t believe that the leaders of the Pakistan movement were envisaging mass migration.” First of all I don’t believe you said that! All “the leaders of Pakistan” were from India (not from within the current borders that define Pakistan.) Pakistan came into being only and only because of the Muslims living in India. If it weren’t for them, there would be no Pakistan. Why would they demand a piece of land and would not migrate to it in huge numbers when it was given to them?

“Pakistan was not created to be ``the promised land`` for all the muslims of the world.” That’s a pretty funny statement considering that “all the muslims of the world” don’t give a didley about Pakistan. Pakistan was created so those Muslims living in India who did not want to live as minority could live in a country where they could be in majority.

“that if the people of Pakistan did not like dictatorships, then why have we not seen a popular uprising or revolution” There is a very simple explanation as to why there is no revolution: people inhabiting the subcontinent are not the revolutionary type. They haven’t protested and risen up against oppression in 5,000 years! They never will. They are completely resigned to their fate. Lucky for the oppressors. They sleep well at nights knowing that they can keep abusing and kicking the unfortunate souls mercilessly forever without worrying about revolution and uprising.

“the majority province takes control without having to share power with the minority provinces”. You may have a point there. But you seem to have a problem with the Punjabis being in majority. Well, first of all, that’s a fact of geography and you cannot run away from it. Secondly, my experience with the Punjabis is that they are among the most moderate and tolerant people I know. They don’t go around killing those who are different than them, like the Iraqis and the Turks who mercilessly kill the Kurds. In that respect, Pakistan is lucky to have the Punjabis as majority. It is no accident that the Pakistan Army, although dominated by the Punjabis, counts among its top Generals minority Pathans and Mohajirs. One must give credit to the Punjabis for their openness and tolerance towards other ethnic groups. Not only that, Pakistani Punjabis, being in majority, have changed themselves to accommodate the minorities. How many ethnic groups in this world you know who are in a majority in their country who would do that? I also believe that more Punjabis in Pakistan marry outside their group than any other group in Pakistan. Kudos to Pakistani Punjabis for that.

“The single biggest factor is that over 60% of the population comes from one province”. I think the percentage is more like 45, not 60.


Yasser,

An excellent article. It is my most sincere hope that you become a leader in Pakistan.

dost mittar #20 I am not sure if things are getting worse or better with respect to communal polarization and violence in the subcontinent: after all, zealots on both sides did kill over half a million people in 1947. While incidents of communal violence continue, with Gujrat being a major one, nothing after that approaches that scale. While communal animosities no doubt exist among a substantial proportion of hindus and muslims in India, they dont seem to be any more intense than in most relatively backward communities.
What I think we need to see is WHAT causes religious extremism (which provides one door to communal violence). I suspect that at least part of it has to do with the spread of ``modernism`` (or ``a global culture`` to use the current buzz word, or ``westernization`` to use the older buzz word, or ``americanization`` to use the European view on all this): the culture shock caused by the invasion of the household by TV (the trojan horse of the global culture) alone has no doubt rattled established cultures to the core. It is if fact indicative of this that a major target of religious parties (particularly in NWFP) is to snip off cable TV. This behavior of muslim zealots in Pakistan that of hindu zealots in India who beat up poor Ronald McDonald: beneath their religious veneer, muslim and hindu zealots are basically tiny brained mastadons that are finding it very hard to adapt to the change in the cultural environment all around them, and as such lash out blindly. They have no place in the future. (Of course this is not the only reason, but I think a major one).
Only trouble is: we will probably see them lashing out blindly for the next 2-3 generations (assuming they dont take the whole planet out in the process). The mastadons will ultimately become extinct, but not before exacting a heavy toll in terms of human misery (as they just demonstrated in Afghanistan).

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ref pmishra2 #14

[I would suggest to you that Mr. Advani is the exact Hindu analog of Mr. Jinnah. ]

What is wrong with that? You don`t want the Pakistanis getting a dose of what they shoved down Congress`s throat in 1947?

You may want to ``behave like a Christian`` and turn the other cheek to the Islamist thugs but realize that these pederasts have a different cheek in mind.

[Both have taken a ``short-cut`` to power. This is also the reason why it is extremely important that Mr. Advani not be the prime minister after the next election.]

What IS your problem with an assertive Hindu?

[Inshallah, the BJP which is steadily being crushed will be reduced (once again) to a significant but small party representing conservative north indian hindus. ]

Inshallah, not.

[Both individuals chose demagoguery over substance when it came to the crunch. Without a doubt Mr. Jinnah was a much higher quality individual but when his back was to the wall he carried out the exact equivalent of Advani`s rath yatra in his ``direct action days``...]

A thug is a thug is a thug. A thug by any other name is still a thug. Jinnah was a thug.

[Exactly as fantastical as the theories of ``hindu grievance`` that Advani has directly and indirectly supported in India and which may in the end destroy Indian democracy.]

Hindu grievances are NOT fantastic theories. They are true and a direct result of the systematic oppression of Hindus by Muslim rulers. The fact that not a single Hindu temple of antiquity stands in Northern India should be testament to the savagery of the Muslim rulers. Despite your North Indian surname, you seem not to have noticed anything out of the ordinary in North India compared to the South.

[The question for us Indians is whether Indian democracy is robust enough to resist the pakistanization of India with demagogues like Advani and Modi.]

No. The real question is whether vote-bank politics will be allowed to perpetuate the ghettoization of India`s Muslims -- which is supported by the Congress and Muslim leaders such as Imam Syed Bukhari.

Ref dost-mittar #12

[An islamic state does call for the pre-eminence of islam in the state but it also provides for the protection of the basic human rights for other minorities, doesn`t it?]

Not, it doesn`t and you know it. Just read the history of any country that was invaded by Muslims (such as Sindh, Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Greece, India both Northern and Southern) and you will know exactly how much protection Islam offers to minorities. And I don`t want any mealy-mouthed distinction now about how the Islamic rulers weren`t practicing True Islam. If they weren`t, it would have been `off with their heads` too.

[If not, the proclaimed Islamic countries of the Gulf would not have attracted so many non-muslims, even certified kafirs, who seem to be willing to pay even bribes to find jobs in the true dar-ul-islam.]

No; they go their for job opportunities that they don`t have in their own country and a chance to make more money than they ever will in their native lands. It has nothing to do with the attractions of an egalitarian society. My Muslim driver returned from Saudi Arabia with no regrets after 2 years.

[I wonder how many christians, hindus or parsees in Pakistan care about whether or not they can be the president or prime minister of the country as long as they can live their ordinary lives, earn their livelihood and practice their faith with dignity and honour?]

That same criterion would then negate the raison d`etre of Pakistan.

[I do not believe for a moment that the creators of Pakistan saw a role for minorities - which at that time meant hindus and sikhs - in the country of their imagination. ]

Yes, they did. The minorities were to remain as slaves to the True Believers or to leave their wealth behind and try to get out of the country with the clothes on their backs and their lives.

[You have over the past 2-3 years posted a large volume of Jinnah`s speeches and quotations. Neither in these quotations nor anywhere else do I recall to have seen Jinnah assigning a role to the minorities in Pakistan during the crucial period of struggle for the new country, namely during 1940-46. At best, one can say that he never really gave a serious thought to what kind of country Pakistan would be as he was only using it as a bargaining lever and did not expect to end up actually having one.]

Don`t attempt to whitewash the crimes of that megalomaniac Jinnah. There are enough Pakistanis in the world who do that.

[Pakistan was created for the Muslims of India.]

No. If that were the case, there wouldn`t be about 130+ million Muslims living in India. Pakistan was created so that the Nawab wanna-be`s of Lucknow could find some brain-dead folks whom they could rip off. They got that in the people of Sindh, West Punjab, Balochistan, NWFP and, tragically, East Bengal.

[o, instead of fighting for the doomed cause of a secular Pakistan, why not join the struggle to ensure that Pakistan becomes a moderate islamic state like Iran...]

Iran? Moderate state? Probably by strict Koranic standards.

[I think that the citizens of Pakistan have the right to be an islamic country because that is what they believed that they were promised.]

They deserve a Taliban-like government. That would be God`s justice for imposing and supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

#26 by tahmed32 on October 31, 2002 5:36pm PT
`` after all, zealots on both sides did kill over half a million people in 1947. While incidents of communal violence continue, with Gujrat being a major one, nothing after that approaches that scale.``

So the 1.5 million Bangladeshis killed (by conservative estimates) in 1971 and the 8-10 million made refugees were a footnote to history?

dear harimau:

why do you think every two-bit muslim invader from central asia was able to have his way with hindu india for about 700 years? also why do you think one third of the population of the subcontinent so eagerly adapted a value system so different from that of their ancestors?

also wanted to thank you for giving hope to people like me who would like to see the dismemberment of the indian political union. the damage you and your bjp allies do to india is far worse than anything inflicted by the pak supported terrorists like maulana azhar . seems to me that the fundos in pakistan as well as the pak army has its strategy upside down. instead of sending terrorist, the pak army should be financing bjp election campaigns and encouraging bjp goons to launch other ayodhias. i for one will certainly be praying for bjp success.

YLH

How lovely to hear from you, I hope all is well. What a huge topic you have chosen to cover, a couple of comments:
I could not agree more that the obscuritanist are utopians, which in itself is reason to deny them support. However; Taliban as revivalist? most certainly not.
I wonder if you had read an article that appeared in the ``Daily Times`` by F. Fukuyama and N. Samin (I think). They make a compelling argument that Taliban, OBL and obscuritanist are inspired by modern political and economic ideology (of the fascist and totalitarian variety).

This struggle will not succumb to handy characterizations but of course we need those to organize. It`s not so much about revivalists vs modernists - because both factions are modern, in as much as their education and inspiration is concerned - for me, most compelling is, that one group posits Islam in the context of an ``open`` society, realizes that secularization will inevitably lead to religions seeking social space, and through that venue, seek a role with regard to conscience and culture in society. The other group too realizes secularization as an agent of change and rejects it. But it posits Islam in a totalitarian melieu and fashions of Islam a vehicle to propel that particular ideology.

If you get a chance, please do drop me a few lines.
All the best.

Faisaluno:

What is the corelation of a BJP Government with the dismemberment of the Indian Union? The only thing a BJP gov`t would achieve in the long term is oppression of some Indian citizensa at the hand of others. How can there be a break up when the Muslims are a minority across the length and breadth of India?

Now, do you see the cruel joke played on Indian Muslims by Jinnah?

tvarad #29 1947 was non-government communal violence where the perpetrators were on both sides, with the British, Indian and Pakistani governments all responsible for not taking action to end the violence. But the actions were not sponsored by any of these governments as a matter of policy.
1971 was civil war with brutality inflicted on both sides, with the Pakistan army no doubt being primarily responsible given that it was the stronger party until December. I have always maintained that the perpetrators (starting from the top) on the Pakistani side should be brought to justice. But that is a different thing altogether from what I was talking about, if you had read my post with some attention.

re: harimau


… how have you been?…back in top gear, i see..


“What IS your problem with an assertive Hindu?”


…there is nothing wrong with an assertive hindu…but when that assertive hindu happens to be the deputy pm of a SECULAR state and whose not-so-secret affiliations with a firebrand hindu group alienate other minorities, then there IS a problem…



“Hindu grievances are NOT fantastic theories. They are true and a direct result of the systematic oppression of Hindus by Muslim rulers.”



…this argument sounds suspiciously like the whinings of bin laden and his ilk when they talk of american ‘oppression’ against the muslims…



“They deserve a Taliban-like government. That would be God`s justice for imposing and supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan. “


...tsk, tsk...so 9/11 was God’s justice against american citizens for their government’s biased support for israel in the middle east?...

Ref faisaluno #34

[why do you think every two-bit muslim invader from central asia was able to have his way with hindu india for about 700 years?]

Wrong weapons system. Babur had guns, the Indians didn`t.

[.. also why do you think one third of the population of the subcontinent so eagerly adapted a value system so different from that of their ancestors?]

They aren`t adopting that value system now or, for that matter, after 1857. That ought to put an end to the propaganda that conversions were voluntary. You of course have the need to believe that myth; otherwise you will have to face the unpleasant truth that your ancestors were cowards. That also explains why most Pakistanis claim direct descent from Prophet Mohammad, his companions, Genghiz Khan, Taimur Lane, Babur, Aurangzeb, etc.

[also wanted to thank you for giving hope to people like me who would like to see the dismemberment of the indian political union.]

I wish all power to folks like you. It is precisely that thought that resulted in the dismemberment not of India but of Pakistan. With folks like you around, there is still hope for an independent Pakhtoonistan, Sindh and Balochistan.

[the damage you and your bjp allies do to india is far worse than anything inflicted by the pak supported terrorists like maulana azhar .]

Finally, an admission of Pakistan`s complicity in the reign of terror in Kashmir.

[seems to me that the fundos in pakistan as well as the pak army has its strategy upside down. instead of sending terrorist, the pak army should be financing bjp election campaigns and encouraging bjp goons to launch other ayodhias. i for one will certainly be praying for bjp success.]

I would rather have India nuke Mecca and Medina than try to get rid of a couple of decrepit mosques in India.

As for the BJP, so long as the Congress Party is mired in dynastic poitics, educated Indians of all stripes will gladly vote for BJP.

YLH

With your permission I am reproducing that article by Fukuyama and Samin - I hope you will find it of interest and that it will add another facet to your worthy exploration of this subject.
``Islam and modernity: reform through radicalism
Francis Fukuyama & Nadav Samin

The modernisation of Islam is hardly imminent and will not occur without enormous struggle. There are many obstacles, not least the lack of a tradition of secular politics. Nor is it clear that the Muslim world is capable of the necessary realistic self-appraisal

What is going on in the Muslim world? Why does it produce suicide hijackers on the one hand and, on the other, lethargic and haphazardly capitalist societies that have delivered neither economic development nor democracy? A partial answer — because it is limited to the Arab region — can be found in a United Nations “development report” written by a group of Arab intellectuals which concludes that the Arab sector, with its oil wealth, is “richer than it is developed”. Its economies are stagnant, illiteracy is widespread, political freedom is rare and its inhabitants, especially women, are denied basic opportunities.

All the same, it would be a mistake to conceive of the Islamism of Osama Bin Laden and his followers as nothing more than an expression of those failures. The phenomenon of radical Islam is more complicated and its long-term effect on Islamic society may turn out to be more complicated still.

The September 11 attacks were carried out by a group of Muslims whose hatred of America was so all-consuming that they were willing to blow themselves up — setting them apart from earlier generations of terrorists. Where did this zeal, so foreign to modern democratic temperament, come from?

Foolish as it would be to downplay the role of religious factors, it will not do simply to call Bin Laden an Islamic fundamentalist. The Islamism of which he is a symbol and a spokesman is not a movement aimed at restoring some archaic or pristine form of Islamic practice. As a number of observers argue, including the Iranian scholars Ladan and Roya Boroumand in the Journal of Democracy, it is best understood not as a traditional movement, but a very modern one.

Groups such as Al Qaeda, the Boroumands write, owe a debt to 20th-century European doctrines of the extreme right and left. One stream of influence can be traced to Hassan al-Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928. From Italy’s fascists he took the idea of unquestioning loyalty to a charismatic leader, modelling the slogan of his paramilitary organisation — “action, obedience, silence” — on Mussolini’s injunction to “believe, obey, fight”. Taking a cue from the Nazis, he placed great emphasis on the Brotherhood’s youth wing and the marriage of the physical and the spiritual, Islam with activism.

A second European source of Islamism can be traced to Maulana Mawdudi, founder of the Jama’at-i Islami movement in the early 1940s. A journalist well versed in Marxism, he advocated struggle by an Islamic “revolutionary vanguard” [Jama’at al-Saliheen] against the West and traditional Islam. As the Boroumands say, he was perhaps the first to attach the adjective “Islamic” to such distinctively western terms as revolution, state and ideology.

These strands of right and left eventually came together in Sayyid Qutb, who became the Brotherhood’s chief ideologist after the second world war. He called for a monolithic state led by an Islamic party, advocating the use of every violent means necessary. In his classless society, the “selfish individual” of liberal societies would be abolished and the “exploitation of man by man” would end. This, as the Boroumands say, was “Leninism in an Islamist dress”, and is the creed embraced by most present-day Islamists. The Boroumands also conclude that the key attributes of Islamism — “the aestheticisation of death, the glorification of armed force, the worship of martyrdom and ‘faith in the propaganda of the deed’” — have little precedent in Islam but are defining features of modern totalitarianism.

So much for ideology. On the sociological side there is another close parallel between Islamism and the rise of European fascism. Nazism’s roots lay in the rapid industrialisation of central Europe. In a single generation, millions of peasants moved from tightly knit villages to impersonal cities, losing a range of familiar cultural norms and signposts.

This was perhaps the most powerful impetus behind modern nationalism. Deprived of local sources of identity, displaced villagers found new social bonds in language, ethnicity and ultimately in the propaganda of Europe’s extreme right. Though rightwing parties pretended to revive ancient traditions, their doctrines were a mishmash of old symbols and new ideas brought together by up-to-date communications technology.

Islamism has followed a similar path. Over the past few decades, most Muslim societies have undergone a social transformation not unlike that of Europe in the late 19th century. Villagers and tribesmen have moved to urban slums, leaving behind the variegated, often preliterate Islam of the countryside. A puritanical Islamism has filled the void, uniting traditional religious rhetoric with the ideology of revolutionary action.

Some suggest that poverty is the engine of Islamism’s growth but this is not so. Rather, like European fascism, Islamism is bred by rapid social dislocation; its propagandists are often new to the middle or upper classes. Islamism introduces these educated but often lonely people to a larger group of believers to become members of a vibrant, if dangerous and destructive, international community.

Seeing Islamism for what it really is leads us to an important question: could it, like fascism and communism before it, serve inadvertently as a modernising force, paving the way for Muslim societies that can respond constructively to the challenge of the West?

The question is not as absurd as it may sound. Comparisons are especially tricky, but the Bolsheviks succeeded in creating an industrialised, urbanised Russia and Hitler got rid of much of the class stratification that characterised pre-war Germany. Through a tortuous and immensely costly path, both these “isms” cleared away some of the underbrush obstructing the growth of liberal democracy.

There are much safer routes toward modernisation, like those taken by countries such as Korea, Britain or the United States, and less expensive paths to modernity were surely available to Russia and Germany. But one has to deal with what one has and in Islamic cultures there is arguably much more underbrush to be cleared. If Islamism is directed as much against traditional forms of Islam as against the West, could it also be a source of such creative destruction?

There are myriad ways in which Islamic practice and its rigid legal framework have obstructed change. Interest rates are fixed by religious authorities, schooling focuses on rote-learning of religious texts and discourages critical thinking, women are kept out of political and economic life, and so on. Many of these constraints existed in the Judaeo-Christian West and were eliminated only after a long struggle.

They still exist in the Islamic present and can only be removed by political power. Islamism has already shown the capability of doing this, and of accommodating western norms: though Khomeini brought back the chaddar for women, he also reluctantly sanctioned their right to vote.

We should not kid ourselves. The modernisation of Islam is hardly imminent and will not occur without enormous struggle. There are many obstacles, not least the lack of a tradition of secular politics. Nor is it clear that the Muslim world is capable of the necessary realistic self-appraisal.

Many non-western societies have tried the path of violent resistance to the military, economic and cultural power of the West. Only when faced with defeat and domination did China and Japan undertake a serious study of what went wrong. Joining the West when they could not beat it, they adopted various western institutions while retaining a core of their own culture. Social learning has been much slower in Muslim societies.

If the wait for Muslim modernisation is likely to be lengthy, how should the West respond in the short term to the prospect of suicide bombings and weapons of mass destruction? The determined application of military power is certainly part of the answer. European fascism did not fall because of its inherent wickedness, it lost legitimacy when it was crushed on the battlefield. Just as Osama Bin Laden and his cause gained status and support from September 11, so the rout of Al Qaeda from Afghanistan and ongoing American operations against terror are key to dampening Islamist fervour.

But the more important struggle must take place within the Islamic world. For too long, Muslim modernisers have sat in the wings while traditionalists and Islamists battle the centre stage. The great need now is for Muslims to take advantage of the turmoil created by September 11 to promote a more genuinely liberal form of their religion.

There is reason to think that such an opening exists. Though many Muslims favour Islamism in the abstract, the movement has a disastrous record where it is in power. Ordinary Afghans were overjoyed to be liberated from the Taliban and eagerly returned to such simple pleasures as watching cheesy Indian films on long-buried VCRs.

It is the Iranians who, having lived under Islamist rule for the past generation, are most likely to lead the Islamic world out of its impasse. One basic demographic fact works in favour of eventual liberalisation: 70% of Iran’s population is now under the age of 30 and from all reports these young people tend to abhor the Islamic theocracy. Having brought the first Islamist regime to power, Iran would set a powerful example for the Middle East and beyond if it moved towards liberalisation.

In the end it is as important not to overestimate the strength of Islamism as it is fatal to underestimate it. It has little to offer Arabs, much less the rest of the Muslim world. Its glorification of violence has already produced a sharp counter-reaction and — provided it is defeated — its “successes” may yet help pave the way for long-overdue reform. If so, this would certainly not be the first time that the cunning of history has produced so astounding a result.

Francis Fukuyama is professor of international political economy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) and author of “Our Posthuman Future.” Nadav Samin is a recent SAIS graduate specialising in Middle Eastern studies``

a) Every two-bit and otherwise invader from anywhere including Central Asia was able to have his way on the sub-Continent simply because we were a placid people. It had nothing to do with religion.

b) What is or was so different about the value systems, that could not be put down to evolution?

c) You can send your donations to the BJP on their website.

dost-mittar (#40)

Point about BJP`s antics in India is taken but when you have a neighbor that is constantly playing up the difference between Muslims and Hindus to sustain it`s ideology, it really doesn`t help the Muslims of India, does it?

Another point - the formation of Pakistan may have been courtesy islamic ideals or better price for wheat or healthier stock of human beings or whatever . . . but one reason which surely took the cake was that the really rich/well off feudal landlords on both sides seem to have doubled their holdings by the simple method of dividing their families into two, leaving one half behind and sending the other across.

At least that was the plan.

Then somebody went and invented fundoos . . .

harimau #28

You say:

[quote]
What is wrong with that? You don`t want the Pakistanis getting a dose of what they shoved down Congress`s throat in 1947?
[end-quote]

Do you really think that Advani is able to do ANYTHING to the pakistani
military and mullahs?? NOT AT ALL. He is completely average in that space. Does he have any strategy in that space? NO ! All he does is to hide his failures by saying look at the bad, bad pakis.

Has training for indian police improved? Have our intelligence systems become better? NO !

Instead, it is the indian minoritities who are getting a second dose of what Jinnah inflicted on all of us in 1947. In other words, the guys you and I went to school and college with, the Salmans and Mustaq`s, the Peters and Javeds, they now fear for their property, family and even their lives. Is that good for India???

Subtlety and steadfastness is needed to deal with the military-mullah rulers of Pakistan. There is a need to speak to the educated and rational people of Pakistan and draw them closer to similar people in India. There is a need to win hearts and minds. Do you really think that the mindless jingoism of Advani and Modi are achieving this??

[quote]
Hindu grievances are NOT fantastic theories. They are true and a direct result of the systematic oppression of Hindus by Muslim rulers. The fact that not a single Hindu temple of antiquity stands in Northern India should be testament to the savagery of the Muslim rulers. Despite your North Indian surname, you seem not to have noticed anything out of the ordinary in North India compared to the South.
[end-quote]

Not only am I an North Indian hindu, my mother is a hindu from J&K with extensive family in the area. And yes, many of my relatives have had to leave their homes due to ``freedom`` brought there by jihadis. So dont patronize me with talk about hindu suffering!!!

The question is how to respond to the violence and grievance of the past. The violence of the islamic invasions of North India. The violence of the caste system. The question is how to respond to religous systems that deny humanity to Others.

How should we deal with all of this? Is it through mob violence in the present? Is it thru ``rath yatras`` that involve 100s of deaths? This is no response, this is committing national suicide.

The correct response is the one people like Abdul Kalam has identified. A vision for the future. To bring out the best in every Indian. To ensure that every Indian child is guaranteed an education. Let every village have a ``Shree Ram Pathshala`` in a pucca building with a full-time teacher. Instead of bricks for a ram mandir, collect bricks for new homes for the homeless. Let us have a rath yatra that helps fulfils these endeavours.

You will never hear proposals like these from an Advani, only cunning demagoguery and an unthinking belligerent nationalism!

faisuluno

Glad to see you have the welfare of so many millions in mind.

Pakistanis like you really could not give a damn about the lives of Muslims in India, you just want to sit back in glee at destruction and terror. In fact after the Hindu fascists, people like you are their worst enemies.

Keep dreaming, you freaky necrophiliac, fantasising over death and destruction.

-h-

Harimau:
The problem with the `assertive Hindu` is that most of his assertions have been wrong and damaging to India, but highly profitable for Advani and his party. Leading a mob to illegally destroy Babri Masjid only to absolve himself of any responsibility thereafter is cowardice, not positive assertiveness

dear harimau:

the parade started 400 years before baber moved to india. so not only have hindus shown a proclivity for cowradice as you yourself acknowledge in your post, they have also shown their lack of inteligence for not being able to come up with a weapon that would have prevented them from being subjected to an additional 400 years of foreign domination. also seem to me that your ancestors displayed as much cowradice as my ancestors for putting up with 700 years of muslim occupution (has to be some kind of reccord). the agony of your ancestors would not have lasted that long if they had displayed the same courage and ditermination as that displayed by palestenians and kashmiri freedom fighters.

i for one am very grateful to my ancestors for embracing islam. at least i dont have to go to bed every night thinking about 700 years of shame.

By the way the most of the Pakistani muslims are closer in culture to the Hindu Indians rather than Muslim Arabs. This is so since most Pakistanis are decendants of Hindu converts to Islam.

pmishra2 #47 Those are wise words you have written. The confrontational mentality that you speak out against provides the swamp which feeds the military (and their secret camp followers, namely the religious parties) in pakistan as well as bjp in india. These groups in turn try to keep the swamp festering with their confrontational policies and propoganda. One day these groups will all be put in their place, but at a heavy cost in terms of lost opportunities for peaceful human and economic progress in the subcontinent.

Harimou:

``As for the BJP, so long as the Congress Party is mired in dynastic poitics, educated Indians of all stripes will gladly vote for BJP. ``

which is why I hope and pray that some patriotic ``terrorist`` group wipes out the remnants of the Gandhi-Nehru dynasty.

Faisaluno:

``i for one am very grateful to my ancestors for embracing islam. at least i dont have to go to bed every night thinking about 700 years of shame.``

Just like the Polish guards at the Nazi concentration camps? They were ashamed to be victims so they joined the oppressor too.

Harimau:

Dude, you`d fit in better in Nepal than India. It is the only Hindu country on this planet.

“They deserve a Taliban-like government. That would be God`s justice for imposing and supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan. “
...tsk, tsk...so 9/11 was God’s justice against american citizens for their government’s biased support for israel in the middle east?...

Touche.

re: faisaluno #44


...this is hilarious...each time one of your type gets cornered on arguments of the present, you bark, rather pathetically and out of pitiful desperation, about tales of ``glory`` (more like barbarism) from centuries ago...is that all you got, boy?...despite the licking pakistan has recent in 3 wars of the recent past, you talk a lot of $hit about bravery...and despite pakistan getting circumcised in 1971, you have the gall to talk about dismemberment of india....tsk tsk tsk...

re: stuka

{Just like the Polish guards at the Nazi concentration camps? They were ashamed to be victims so they joined the oppressor too. }


...ouch!...right on!...sad isn`t it, that this fellow`s ancestors were part of the people threatened and coerced, and here he is celebrating that like a dunce...

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#44 by faisaluno

[i for one am very grateful to my ancestors for embracing islam. at least i dont have to go to bed every night thinking about 700 years of shame. ]


In other words If you are getting raped then might as well spread the legs and enjoy it!!!!

Congrats!!!

Indian

#55 by dost-mittar

Will Pakistan show us humble Indians how minorities ought to be treated? I mean, everyone except Muslims being deemed second class citizens on account of it being a Islamic republic, a whole religious community declared persona non-grata, churches being bombed, Shias being used for target practice does not exactly an example make.

But that`s besides the point. You are yet to answer my question. How exactly does Pakistan`s ideological belligerence help Indian Muslims? A more erudite answer, please.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Another article centering around religion. Why do people obssess with it so much?

I think if someone were to take a survey in Pakistan (I cannot remember the Herald survey results exactly), nobody in Pakistan would give a hoot about religion or secularism. Yet article after article keeps centering arount it. What a waste of intellectual bandwidth.

If Pakistan becomes a secular state, it is not going to be any better or worse than if it becomes a religious state, or vice-versa. Anyone who arrogantly declares, ``himself/herself`` as the, ``solution`` to Pakistan has missed the whole point, before the game has even started. This is exactly what the religious and secular brigade does. They are both victims of, ``me case.`` i.e, I know best, every Pakistani other than me, is an idiot.

I would like to ask the author what the, ``modernist`s`` view is on democracy? Did it ever strike any of them that modernists should support the will of the people, even if it conflicts with their, ``I am the best`` logic. Suppose everyone in Pakistan wants to elect a mullah as their Prime Minister. What do the self-proclaimed, ``modernists`` do at that time? If they kick the mullah out, or attempt to make a fool of him, how are they any different the religionists they so despise.

The problem in Pakistan, and in Turkey and in Algeria and in Egypt and in any country in which Islamic parties have shown an upsurge is not that, ``modernist`` forces have been defeated. The problem is that there were no, ``modernists`` to begin with. What the hell did the Shahs of Iran, the Abdul-Nassers, the Bhuttos, the Ata-turk wannabes etc. ever do for their countries, other than loot them? After all, other than Zia, Pakistan has been ruled by, ``secular`` forces for all its years. If being more secular than religious is the only problem in these countries, then these individuals should have turned each country into Singapore.

The reasons maulvis are coming into power is that the people have given the, ``modernisits`` chance after chance, and they have disappointed. Who else is left, other than the maulvis? The poor have the option of having no voice under the modernists, or having at least some voice under the maulvis. Even if the maulvis come with their own baggage of narrow-mindedness.

Maybe Pakistan`s wannabe-reformers should stop obsessing with secularism and, ``modernisms`` and start trying to figure out who can put food on people`s plates, who can clean the gutters and who can give poor folk jobs and a voice against the staus quo powers. The discarded modernists didn`t do it. If a new group of modernists can do it, more power to them (not because the secular, but becuase they are effective). If the maulvi brigade can do it, then more power to them, also.

I hope Pakistan, someday, reaches a state where religion and secularism are both kicked out of the national debate. Both these groups have done nothing but build their own careers and arguments on religion (or lack of it). Whomever can raise the living standard of the poorest Pakistani should run the mohallaha, village, city, province and country. It shouldn`t make a rat`s ass of a difference if he/she considers himself/herself the next bext thing to sliced bread, to Ghazali, or to Ata-turk.

The ultimate debate in Pakistan should be between, ``the people who can clean the gutters of Pakistan (literally and figuratively`` and the people who cannot - not between the modernists and non-modernists. After all, the maulvis consdier themselves as right and as modern as the, ``modernists.``

Some observations on this factually incorrect article.


``Little did they know that the farsighted Maudoodi was also rejoicing.
`Maulana Maudoodi came out in the favor of the resolution declaring proudly that ‘the country we had considered our enemy till yesterday, now we consider our home.’ ``

1. Please read ``Tehreek e Aazaade e Hind aur Musalmaan by Maudoodi``, what Maudoodi was opposing was a State created in the name of Islam by a set that was definitly secular in approach and was he right. look at the mess Pakistan is in now.

2.``After surviving the commuted death penalty for inciting sectarian violence against the Ahmadis,``

The death sentence was passed by a military tribunal NOT a court of law, and it was based on Maudoodis booklet ``Qadiani Masalaa`` which does not incite hatred but is a scholarly evaluation of the Ahmadi claims.


``What happened in Afghanistan under the Taliban is a scary picture of what might happen if the revivalists were ever to triumph convincingly over the modernists``

3. Sadly your lack of knowledge of the Afghan society makes you give sweeping statements like these. What happened in Afghanistan was more a result of their traditions mixed with a form of Islam rejected by Maudoodi and the Jamaat.


``The Islamic worldview especially on human rights, women’s rights, religious freedom, freedom of conscience and democracy, needs to be updated immediately``.

4. Would you kindly enlighten me with what YOU THINK is the Islamic worldview on these issues???

`` The path to revitalization of the Islamic order lies in the acceptance of modernity``.

5. Definition of moderanity??????

Now YLH how many book written by Maudoodi have you read? An honest answer please. Judging from your rather uneducated opinion i guess not one, the mature way to express your opposition to a person or his ideas is to first read his works. I strongly suggest you do that.
Further always define phrases or ``buzzwords`` you use in your writing else what you write is meaningless.

Sincerely
Adnan

Ref dost-mittar #55

[Loyalty of minorities has to be earned,...]

If by that you imply that minorities have a right to anti-national activities if thet are not mollycoddled, you are playing right into the hands of --- er, how do I say this? --- the BJP.

[If India treats her muslims with love and trust, even hydra will start singing vande matram!]

So long as the economic pie is small, there will always be those who claim discrimination because they didn`t get any pie. All I can say is: the average Muslim in India faces about as much discrimination as the average poor Joe Blow. So, the Muslims can either join the mainstream or stay in their ghettoes. It is the same choice that is offered to every single Indian citizen. People like Zafar make the right choice and are happy that they had the OPPORTUNITY to succeed. People like Studebaker take the opportunity and still badmouth India. And then there are the Pakistanis who say, like Jinnah did: hey, forget the exam part, just hand out the diplomas. Even their religion tells them they don`t get their 72 houris unless they do namaaz 5 times a day, so why can`t they accept the fact that they have to compete on earth to succeed?

Ref faisaluno #44

[the parade started 400 years before baber moved to india...]

And THAT parade stopped at Delhi.

[... so not only have hindus shown a proclivity for cowradice as you yourself acknowledge in your post...]

The only Indians who displayed cowardice were those who gave up their heritage because they valued their lives more than their honor. As you might learn from the census figures of India, 82% of us managed to retain our self-respect by not bowing down in the direction of Mecca when the choice was between embracing The True Faith and the Swift Sword of Death.

On the other hand, people like you have to constantly re-assure yourseves of your self-worth by thinking that one Pak soldier is worth 10 Hindu soldiers.

[... they have also shown their lack of inteligence for not being able to come up with a weapon that would have prevented them from being subjected to an additional 400 years of foreign domination.]

Your own idiots would then include Bahadur Shah II, Hyder Ali, Tipu Sultan, Siraj-ud-Dowla, the various rulers of Sindh who ran away when Napier came marching in, and a whole host of nawabs ruling Lucknow, Awadh, the Rohilkhand, etc.

[the agony of your ancestors would not have lasted that long if they had displayed the same courage and ditermination as that displayed by palestenians and kashmiri freedom fighters.]

Last I heard, the Israelis were using Palestinians for target practice and, according to you guys, the Kashmiri women are comfort women for the Indian Army.

[i for one am very grateful to my ancestors for embracing islam. at least i dont have to go to bed every night thinking about 700 years of shame.]

Look up the meaning of terms like the Stockholm Syndrome and cognitive dissonance.

#63 Romair
The reason the Muallanas got elected could be pointed out to the fact that the usually more complaining and whining middle class didnt bother to go out and vote. Now why these ppl didnt go out and vote could be that they getting more cynical and less contributing. If the cycle of election is been intrupted frequently one can get disinfranchised indeed. Let`s make every five years election part of Pakistan polity.

And dont underestimate the strength of Dumb fundos, they know one and only one thing, how to make one lives unlivable. They have powerful street presence and they can make others dumbs fundo united on one platform for that so called Islamic utopia. I wished all these fundos who yearning for utopia let them have it. Becuase in the end they will fail, when the masses will realizes that they too have empty promises. There will be a big clash within the muslim societies and there must be. It wont be easy ride, indeed it will be a bloody war. These fights have to be fought from within. Iran is an execellent example.

Ref wholly-precious-you #40

[… how have you been?…back in top gear, i see.. ]

Quite well, thank you. As for being in top gear, well, why not?

[…there is nothing wrong with an assertive hindu…but when that assertive hindu happens to be the deputy pm of a SECULAR state and whose not-so-secret affiliations with a firebrand hindu group alienate other minorities, then there IS a problem…]

You see, the real problem with Hindu Indians is that they WANT to be liked by everybody. The truth is, people appreciate raw power. Look at China: the US was so worried about China from the 1950s right through the 80s all because Mao was throwing his weight around. Look at even Pakistan: everybody thinks that Pakistan might behave irrationally and start a nuclear war and so India should handle Pakistan with kid gloves. I think it is time for Pakistan to think that India might be mad enough to start a nuclear war and start behaving cautiously. If they are the least bit worried about India`s rationality, do you think they would allow one madrassah graduate to get into Kashmir? Heck, no; the entire Pak Army would be frantically plugging every hole in the LOC and Musharraf would be sweating blood each time a single Indian soldier or Hindu civilian is killed in Kashmir. It is time for someone like Advani to threaten massive retaliation and prove it by launching one concentrated strike against some Pak city with conventionally armed Prithvi rockets. A couple of hundred of those buzz bombs hitting Islamabad with conventional 2000-lb iron bombs when the next Indian soldier is killed with a promise that thousands more are on their launching pads ought to bring Mushy and his cohorts sobering thoughts about whether the 72 houris are really worth it.

[…this argument sounds suspiciously like the whinings of bin laden and his ilk when they talk of american ‘oppression’ against the muslims… ]

Bin Laden is talking about suppression of Muslims in Chechnya or Palestine, which are not his homelands. I am talking about my country, India.

I give credit to the Sultans of Delhi in that they didn`t think of themselves as the rulers of Uzbekistan with a colony in India. They titled themselves as the rulers of Hindustan. Which is far different than what Jinnah did.

[“They deserve a Taliban-like government. That would be God`s justice for imposing and supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan. “

...tsk, tsk...so 9/11 was God’s justice against american citizens for their government’s biased support for israel in the middle east?....]

Well, if the Pakistanis can dish it out to the Afghans, they should be willing to take it themselves, don`t you think? At least, in this case I would not then accuse them of having one rule for Muslims and another for kaffirs.

Ref dost-mittar #40

[The point is that minorities in Pakistan, as elsewhere for that matter, primarily want to be able to pursue their lives peacefully and with dignity without bothering too much about the form of governance.]

So, the minorities in Pakistan should be willing to give up their political rights in return for some guarantee of safety? Well, the minorities have been deprived of at least some political rights by not being able to hold office as Prime Minister or President and exactly what safety have they received?

By the same token, why couldn`t Indian Muslims in pre-1947 India have declared that they are willing to give up some of their political rights in return for guarantees of safety?

[Muslims in India, for example, would have no problem with the BJP if events like Gujarat did not happen...]

I hate to have to say this again and again. It was not as if there was no provocation against the Hindus of Gujarat before Feb 28, 2002.

Aamir #62,

It is not whether Indian Muslims should be treated the same or different from Hindus in India. The question that I am asking is whether Pakistan`s continued belligerence against India on the basis of it`s Islamic ideology is hurting Indian Muslims. The illogical thing that I observe is that on the one hand Pakistanis claimed they got a country because Muslims couldn`t live with Hindus; on the other hand, they keep making Tsk Tsk noises about how Indian Muslims are being treated. Either you can live with Hindus or you cannot. If Pakistanis cared that much, then the honest thing that should have been done is to have have evacuated every last Muslim from India. If they couldn`t do that then they should have made peace with India the day they got Pakistan if they really cared about them. None of this happened. It seems to me that Pakistanis want to have the cake and eat it too.

That is why dost-mittar attacking the BJP and how they`re treating Muslims seems so specious to me.

Interesting article:

``My late night conversations with Asim became a regular feature. During one such conversation, I asked him what people in his neighbourhood and community thought about the elections and the Mutahidda Majlis-e-Amal’s landslide victory. He laughed and said, “Omar bhai, these things are concerns for you, driving in your comfortable car. Someone like me doesn’t care whether the PPP is in power, or Nawaz Sharif or the maulvis. I just care about getting my mother and me three meals a day and not getting beaten up by other beggars.” `` (http://www.thefridaytimes.com/)

AAmir


Good indicators assuming that all these studies have been done scientifically and not so as to boost theories.

Regarding Kerala ,it is indeed the simple arithmetic of population growth that catapulted Muslims to 30% or more of the population. The last district to go 100% literate in Kerala was the Muslim majority dist. of Malappuram. Average family sizes there are way above the average for Christian or Hindus of Kerala. So much so that much like the Bangladeshis Malabari Muslims are migrating and changing the demographics of many states. One only hopes sanity will prevail and we will not have any political exploitation of these migrations.

The problem with comparisons with Turkey and Indonesia is that these countries have long turned vastly Muslim with token non-Muslim presence and it is easier for social decisions in such cases than say India where half of the Muslim leadership exploits the nature of their constituents.

True change cannot happen unless the Muslim areas of UP, MP etc reform and that may take more than this generation to do , it will also need instituations such as the AMU to step up to the plate with some radical ideas.

re: harimau

{People like Studebaker take the opportunity and still badmouth India. }

...12-head is not indian...that is pretty obvious...he`s as much indian as he is a doctor one day, an engineer the next, a barber another, and so on...

Of possible relevance - a piece by Rafiq Zakaria in Mid-Day

(via sulekha newshopper, oops)

http://www.sulekha.com/redirectNh.asp?fromwhere=http://www.sulekha.com/hopper.asp?pg=2&SortBy=1&cid=261121

#74 by dost-mittar

``But the creators of Pakistan had never promised a rose garden for minorities in their future promised land. This is not the case for India. Her leaders promised muslim Indians a secular country where there would be no discrimination against them. ``

This is what I call ``Mullah logic``. It`s called ``Heads I win, Tails you lose`` and the fundamental problem that Indians have with why Pakistan was created. ``We can discriminate against our minorities because we`re islamic but you`re not allowed to discriminate against your minorities because you`re secular``. In the same vein as ``We want Pakistan because Muslims cannot live with Hindus but it is the responsibility of Hindus to live with the Muslims that are left behind``. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

77 by Tipu,

I don`t think you get what I am saying but to simply state that Pakistan happened and we should live happily ever after is simply ridiculous because everyone knows it was not a fairy tale. The undercurrents of emotions of that era still run through the sub-continent and if you deny it, you are nuts. The numerous wars and assorted mayhem haven`t happened in a vacuum.

As I keep saying, if Pakistan had made it`s peace with India at the time of independence and concentrated on the difficult job of nation-building, it would have been one thing. But my belligerence against Pakistan is simply because of what I see it as today: a total failure and what a waste it has been. Essentially it is an apology for the 1000 years that Islam has been in India. It`s citizens are unwanted arond the globe. Everywhere there is a terrorist attack, the name Pakistan immediately crops up. Diplomats stationed there are not allowed to bring their family along and have short rotations. It`s cricket team is essentially on refugee status, playing everywhere in the world except Pakistan! It`s leaders will pimp the country at the drop of a hat just to live for another day to fight this ridiculous ideological fight. This ideology is taken to such an extreme that the Government of Pakistan actually intervened to stop a 20 year old bimbo from contesting as a Pakistani in a beauty contest in Japan! I think if there is to be introspection from Pakistanis, it should be about what is happening in their country instead of saying ``poor Indian Muslims, see what is happening to them``.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

tvarad #76
Your statement to dost-mittar sounds like this `` do you realise how ridiculous you sound when you say I shouldnot beat my wife when you well know my neighbour murdered his``.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

YLH,

Another prescriptive article by a dishonest psuedo intelectual. He knows ahat the pakistanis should do, but do not have the guts to do something. Why not an article about lala lajpat roy istead of writing about sher sha suri.

``82 by sadna tvarad #76
Your statement to dost-mittar sounds like this `` do you realise how ridiculous you sound when you say I shouldnot beat my wife when you well know my neighbour murdered his``.``

Wrong. It should be ``do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you say I should not beat my wife when you well know that you are beating yours``.

Let me reword what I said. It should say ``do you realise how ridiculous you sound when you say I should not beat my wife when you well know you have murdered yours``.

#79 by dost-mittar

dost-mittar,

I haven`t let out even one word about my opinion on Indian Muslims because that is not the argument here. I have concentrated on why our friends from across the border have such strong opinions on how they are being treated despite what is happening in their own country. I think the problems of minorities in Pakistan make what is happening to minorities in India look like a Sunday picnic by comparision. As they say, physician, heal thyself.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

dear harimau and other bjpites:

i am not the one who is having nightmares about the past 1000 years. in fact i sleep extremely soundly indeed. and before i go to sleep everyday, i say a small prayer for jinnah to thank him for insuring that i don’t have to live next door to you guys. who says ethnic cleansing does not work. thanks also for taking east pakistan off our hands. i certainly do not want my tax rupee subsidizing another basket case economy. bangalis were grateful for their independence and they showed their gratitude by ly