Muslims in India: Communalism vs. Backwardness-Minority Syndrome
Zafar Anjum February 27, 2003
#169 Posted by dialogue on March 13, 2003 6:44:32 am
I feel the issue has been aggravated by the preoccupation of our people with religion and ideology. Why can`t we treat humans as humans and not as muslims and hindus? Or let me ask a more useful question - How can we mature to a state where we can rise above religion in our interpersonal interactios?
Unless that happens, these discussions are frivolous matters and one upping in the tradition of the religious kind.
Unless that happens, these discussions are frivolous matters and one upping in the tradition of the religious kind.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#168 Posted by nasah on March 9, 2003 6:44:43 am
sorry friends -- aur bhi gum hain zaman meiN muhabbat ke sewa -- this is more urgent right now -- my apology for the intrusion.
A civilized ex President of MY civilized United States -- speaks out against the FOOLISH WAR -- about to be launched by our FOOLISH President -- at great PERILS to Peace and Security -- at home -- and RULE OF LAW -- abroad.
Here is an Op Ed column by President Jimmy Carter -- from todays New Yok Times:
a Just War -- or just a war?
By JIMMY CARTER
AATLANTA — Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness.
These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint.
Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.
As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards.
This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.
For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.
The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted.
In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist.
These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday.
But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations.
The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.
The war`s weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in ``collateral damage.`` Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.
Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein`s other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.
The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent.
The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade.
For these objectives, we do not have international authority.
Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence (pressure) that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China.
Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards (bribes -- a crime) and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.
The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists.
Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home.
Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.
What about America`s world standing if we don`t go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region?
__________________________________________________
The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory.
______________________________________________________
American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations.
But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq`s compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.(NYT)
A civilized ex President of MY civilized United States -- speaks out against the FOOLISH WAR -- about to be launched by our FOOLISH President -- at great PERILS to Peace and Security -- at home -- and RULE OF LAW -- abroad.
Here is an Op Ed column by President Jimmy Carter -- from todays New Yok Times:
a Just War -- or just a war?
By JIMMY CARTER
AATLANTA — Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness.
These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint.
Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.
As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards.
This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.
For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.
The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted.
In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist.
These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday.
But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations.
The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.
The war`s weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in ``collateral damage.`` Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.
Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein`s other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.
The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent.
The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade.
For these objectives, we do not have international authority.
Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence (pressure) that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China.
Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards (bribes -- a crime) and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.
The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists.
Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home.
Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.
What about America`s world standing if we don`t go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region?
__________________________________________________
The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory.
______________________________________________________
American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations.
But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq`s compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.(NYT)
#167 Posted by sadna on March 6, 2003 8:56:43 am
Sorry for multiple posts.
Pankaj #164
Good post. A cooperative-competitive relationship as you nicely put it, lies at the heart of Indian regionalism vs nationalism too.
And as you point out, the cooperation can be more than hardnosed pragmatism, it can even be constructive. For example, though my father lives in the far south, he has been involved with helping build a Hindi lexicon of technical terms, being invited to do so by local Malayalis who are running this activity! Now how is this possible, that Malayalis will be engaged in building a Hindi lexicon? Paradoxically, its because its been accepted that in Kerala the first and official language is Malayalam, and only after that come the claims of other languages like English or Hindi. Being secure in the status of their own language and institutional support for it, people then feel free to apply their minds to other languages.
Pankaj #164
Good post. A cooperative-competitive relationship as you nicely put it, lies at the heart of Indian regionalism vs nationalism too.
And as you point out, the cooperation can be more than hardnosed pragmatism, it can even be constructive. For example, though my father lives in the far south, he has been involved with helping build a Hindi lexicon of technical terms, being invited to do so by local Malayalis who are running this activity! Now how is this possible, that Malayalis will be engaged in building a Hindi lexicon? Paradoxically, its because its been accepted that in Kerala the first and official language is Malayalam, and only after that come the claims of other languages like English or Hindi. Being secure in the status of their own language and institutional support for it, people then feel free to apply their minds to other languages.
#166 Posted by sadna on March 5, 2003 9:27:12 pm
Chowk staff, please post this.
rsridhar
Why are you unwilling to except that your generalizations can be wrong? And my experience is not restricted to Kerala.
An analogy of the destructive potential of your generalization here: what if I went around saying I am a victim of Brahmins and Brahminism? I can easy generalize the insular attitude or rigid habits of a few of my Brahmin friends to every Brahmin including you, if I am not mistaken. Then I can twist everything you say and all your attitudes or every known Brahmin`s attitudes and actions to suit this thesis, even giving Brahminical import to Vajpayee`s vacation and Advani`s breakfast. Would it make sense for me or anyone to do so?
No, and the reason is the reality is that nothing about modern day Brahmins and Brahminism is simple any more, and EVEN the insular attitude or rigid habits of a few have to be seen in proper context. For example, I have found any insularity is not a desire to perpetuate caste heirarchy and persecute or exclude others, it is simply something personal such as cultural pride, including in their traditions, something many nonBrahmins also display.
And how much variation there is in attitude of `Brahmins` in a given region, add to that the difference in regions and finally all this variety is seen only in single digit percentages of the absolute Indian population. With such a variety of experience, generalizing about `Brahmins`(like some Pakistanis do, for example) would be totally meaningless and very destructive enterprise.
Similarly nothing is simple about Muslims, Muslim cultures and traditions and attitudes of Indian Muslim populations which are much more numerous, so kindly restrain your broad brush hostility.
Sameer #150
Your Gujarat example is absolutely correct and appropriate.
Re your earlier remarks on Gandhi/Nehru being elitist, well truth be told I find yours and Saima`s attitudes elitist:). Saima asked whether Pakistanis can buy land in India and you are all for putting ones regional loyalities ahead of everything. I think these are elitist concerns.
Firstly, only rich Pakistanis can buy land, anywhere. Currently, the landless, for example are dependent on the goodwill and profitability of large landlords for livelihood. Given, this, ordinary Pakistanis should be able to buy land in Pakistan, only then should the question of doing so in India come up. Share the bounty with your countrymen first!
In addition, ordinary Pakistanis should be able to become trade union leaders, mayors, sarpanchs, member of provincial legislatures and member of National assembly and have access and influence in matters in their personal lives, locality and region in their own country before becoming a landowner or voter or consumer of civic utilities of another country as well.
Also, if market forces or say large scale mechanized farming displaces the ordinary guy, where is the opportunity to emphasize his regional identity and culture? What is the regional identity of someone who will be evicted when his tilling contract expires? Or someone who cannot find a job in his hometown. He will need to migrate out to where he can find a job, or say where water for irrigation is available. They maynot speak his mother tongue or celebrate his culture where he finds all this. His children maynot be taught their mother tongue in their school and he maynot have access to newspapers and books in his language.
On the above two points, Gandhi and Nehru both had visions, however incomplete. For example, the Congress had even preIndependence accepted end of landlordism and land redistribution in principle. Gandhiji had a vision for villages to be selfcontained economies, so that noone has to migrate out and there would be minimal environmental degradation. Nehru had a vision for the state to take everyone along economically. India stuck with the Nehru economic model for too long, but it did a lot of what it was meant to do(including giving rise to a middle class) before it became a economic deadweight. Gandhiji and Nehru were much more leftist and and much less elitist :) in these matters and they succeeded in selling their ideas to a huge audience for this reason.
#165 Posted by sadna on March 5, 2003 9:22:23 pm
rsridhar
Why are you unwilling to except that your generalizations can be wrong? And my experience is not restricted to Kerala.
An analogy of the destructive potential of your generalizations- suppose I went around saying I am a victim of Brahmins and Brahminism? I can easy generalize the insular attitude or rigid habits of a few of my Brahmin friends to every Brahmin including you, if I am not mistaken. Then I can twist everything you say and all your attitudes or every known Brahmin`s attitudes and actions to suit this thesis of Brahminical victimisation, even giving Brahminical import to Vajpayee`s vacation and Advani`s breakfast. Would it make sense for me or anyone to do so?
No, and why? For the reason that in reality nothing about modern day Brahmins and Brahminism is simple any more, and EVEN the insular attitude or rigid habits of a few have to be seen in proper context. For example, I have found any insularity among any of my Brahmin friends is not a desire to perpetuate caste heirarchy and persecute or exclude others, it is simply something wholly personal such as cultural pride, including in their traditions, something many nonBrahmins also display.
And there is a lot of individual/group variation in attitudes of `Brahmins` in a given community, or region, add to that the difference in regions and finally all this variety is seen only in single digit percentages of the absolute Indian population. With such a variety of experience, generalizing about `Brahmins`(like some Pakistanis do, for example) would be a totally meaningless and very destructive enterprise.
Similarly NOTHING is simple about Muslims, Muslims cultures and traditions and attitudes of Indian Muslim populations which are much more numerous, so kindly restrain your broad brush hostility. Even Rafiq Zakaria doesnot have the omniscience of god.
Sameer #150
Your Gujarat example is absolutely correct and appropriate.
Re your earlier remarks on Gandhi/Nehru being elitist, well truth be told I find yours and Saima`s attitudes elitist:). Saima asked whether Pakistanis can buy land in India and you are all for putting ones regional loyalities ahead of everything. I think given the way things are, these are elitist concerns.
Firstly, only rich Pakistanis can buy land, anywhere. Currently, the landless, for example are dependent on the goodwill and profitability of large landlords for livelihood. Given this, ordinary Pakistanis should be able to buy land in Pakistan, at least get the title of that which they have tilled for generations, if they so desire, and only then should the question of doing so in India come up. Share the bounty with your countrymen first!
In addition, ordinary Pakistanis should be able to become trade union leaders, mayors, sarpanchs, member of provincial legislatures and member of National assembly and have access and influence in matters in their personal lives, locality and region in their own country before becoming a landowner or voter or consumer of civic utilities and subsidies of another country as well.
Also, if market forces or say large scale mechanized farming displaces the ordinary guy, where is the opportunity for him to emphasize his regional identity and culture? What is the regional identity of someone who will be evicted when his tilling contract expires? Or someone who cannot find a job in his hometown. He will need to migrate out to where he can find a job, or say where water for irrigation is available. They maynot speak his mother tongue or celebrate his culture where he finds all this, the schools may not teach his children their mother tongue, books and newspapers in his language may not be available.
On these matters and others, Gandhi and Nehru both had visions, however incomplete. For example, the Congress had even preIndependence accepted end of landlordism and land redistribution in principle. Gandhiji had a vision for villages to be selfcontained economies, so that noone has to migrate out and there would be minimal environmental degradation. Nehru had a vision for the objective of the state to be to take everyone along economically. India stuck with the Nehru economic model for too long, but it did a lot of what it was meant to do(including giving rise to a middle class) before it became a economic deadweight. Gandhiji and Nehru were much more leftist and and much less elitist in these matters :) and they succeeded in selling their ideas to a huge nonelitist audience for this reason.
Why are you unwilling to except that your generalizations can be wrong? And my experience is not restricted to Kerala.
An analogy of the destructive potential of your generalizations- suppose I went around saying I am a victim of Brahmins and Brahminism? I can easy generalize the insular attitude or rigid habits of a few of my Brahmin friends to every Brahmin including you, if I am not mistaken. Then I can twist everything you say and all your attitudes or every known Brahmin`s attitudes and actions to suit this thesis of Brahminical victimisation, even giving Brahminical import to Vajpayee`s vacation and Advani`s breakfast. Would it make sense for me or anyone to do so?
No, and why? For the reason that in reality nothing about modern day Brahmins and Brahminism is simple any more, and EVEN the insular attitude or rigid habits of a few have to be seen in proper context. For example, I have found any insularity among any of my Brahmin friends is not a desire to perpetuate caste heirarchy and persecute or exclude others, it is simply something wholly personal such as cultural pride, including in their traditions, something many nonBrahmins also display.
And there is a lot of individual/group variation in attitudes of `Brahmins` in a given community, or region, add to that the difference in regions and finally all this variety is seen only in single digit percentages of the absolute Indian population. With such a variety of experience, generalizing about `Brahmins`(like some Pakistanis do, for example) would be a totally meaningless and very destructive enterprise.
Similarly NOTHING is simple about Muslims, Muslims cultures and traditions and attitudes of Indian Muslim populations which are much more numerous, so kindly restrain your broad brush hostility. Even Rafiq Zakaria doesnot have the omniscience of god.
Sameer #150
Your Gujarat example is absolutely correct and appropriate.
Re your earlier remarks on Gandhi/Nehru being elitist, well truth be told I find yours and Saima`s attitudes elitist:). Saima asked whether Pakistanis can buy land in India and you are all for putting ones regional loyalities ahead of everything. I think given the way things are, these are elitist concerns.
Firstly, only rich Pakistanis can buy land, anywhere. Currently, the landless, for example are dependent on the goodwill and profitability of large landlords for livelihood. Given this, ordinary Pakistanis should be able to buy land in Pakistan, at least get the title of that which they have tilled for generations, if they so desire, and only then should the question of doing so in India come up. Share the bounty with your countrymen first!
In addition, ordinary Pakistanis should be able to become trade union leaders, mayors, sarpanchs, member of provincial legislatures and member of National assembly and have access and influence in matters in their personal lives, locality and region in their own country before becoming a landowner or voter or consumer of civic utilities and subsidies of another country as well.
Also, if market forces or say large scale mechanized farming displaces the ordinary guy, where is the opportunity for him to emphasize his regional identity and culture? What is the regional identity of someone who will be evicted when his tilling contract expires? Or someone who cannot find a job in his hometown. He will need to migrate out to where he can find a job, or say where water for irrigation is available. They maynot speak his mother tongue or celebrate his culture where he finds all this, the schools may not teach his children their mother tongue, books and newspapers in his language may not be available.
On these matters and others, Gandhi and Nehru both had visions, however incomplete. For example, the Congress had even preIndependence accepted end of landlordism and land redistribution in principle. Gandhiji had a vision for villages to be selfcontained economies, so that noone has to migrate out and there would be minimal environmental degradation. Nehru had a vision for the objective of the state to be to take everyone along economically. India stuck with the Nehru economic model for too long, but it did a lot of what it was meant to do(including giving rise to a middle class) before it became a economic deadweight. Gandhiji and Nehru were much more leftist and and much less elitist in these matters :) and they succeeded in selling their ideas to a huge nonelitist audience for this reason.
#164 Posted by m_souza on March 5, 2003 9:18:34 pm
arjun_m
Indeed it is ridiculous to think that muslims are any less patriotic that Hindus or Sikhs. In my various study courses and jobs I have had muslims as colleagues and could never tell the difference. In fact, now..and only now.. I look back and realise that ..Yes!! they were muslims..and now only I sit down to analyse thier behaviour (which was very much like any other Indian). So, we should not just believe the BJP for all its propaganda.
But we do have some elements who believe in muslim brotherhood more than a loyalty towards the country. And these few behave differently.
Indeed it is ridiculous to think that muslims are any less patriotic that Hindus or Sikhs. In my various study courses and jobs I have had muslims as colleagues and could never tell the difference. In fact, now..and only now.. I look back and realise that ..Yes!! they were muslims..and now only I sit down to analyse thier behaviour (which was very much like any other Indian). So, we should not just believe the BJP for all its propaganda.
But we do have some elements who believe in muslim brotherhood more than a loyalty towards the country. And these few behave differently.
#163 Posted by Pankaj on March 5, 2003 9:18:34 pm
Sadna
The process of social and economic integration is going on in Pakistan too, though I am not sure at what scale. As far as Jamali being a Balochi is concerned, I doubt if he has any real power or even if he commands the loyalty of some dominant tribe of Balochistan, say Bugti. In all probability, Mushy has made him PM thinking that he would be less of a trouble than any politician with some ``weight``. Nevertheless, the degree of interdependence of Pakistani states is sufficiently high to keep it united. Let us take the case of Sindh and Punjab. Sindh is dissatisfied as she can not get the water she thinks is her legitimate share. At the same time, she knows very well that she is totally dependent upon Punjab for additional water. Thus it is a cooperative-competitive relationship in which either party will pose as the aggrieved one to maximize its own benefit but will finally compromise to reach some optimum. Secondly, only Punjab and Karachi can steer the economy of remaining backward states of Pakistan. By themselves, NWFP and Balochistan are not only economically unviable but politically unstable too. NWFP, in all likelihood will see a Talibanic revolution if not for a little moderating influence of Punjab. Again, Punjab by exercising its dominant influence can persuade the rival Bugti and Mazari tribes to the negotiating table. Left to themselves, these tribes would annhilate each other in the internecine warfare. Now add to it the strength of Islamic bond and you have a not-so-weak Pakistan. IMO, Pakistan state, despite the gloomy predictions of a few, is actually quite a stable state in political sense, though lawless. Those who think that Pakistan will disintegrate are exaggerating the negative factors and overlooking the balance of power and economic factors that ties the fate of one state to the other. However Pakistan may continue to see the lawlessness for a couple of decades, thanks to the gross socio-economic mismanagement- an inevitable fallout of the corrupt leaders and jihadi culture.
The process of social and economic integration is going on in Pakistan too, though I am not sure at what scale. As far as Jamali being a Balochi is concerned, I doubt if he has any real power or even if he commands the loyalty of some dominant tribe of Balochistan, say Bugti. In all probability, Mushy has made him PM thinking that he would be less of a trouble than any politician with some ``weight``. Nevertheless, the degree of interdependence of Pakistani states is sufficiently high to keep it united. Let us take the case of Sindh and Punjab. Sindh is dissatisfied as she can not get the water she thinks is her legitimate share. At the same time, she knows very well that she is totally dependent upon Punjab for additional water. Thus it is a cooperative-competitive relationship in which either party will pose as the aggrieved one to maximize its own benefit but will finally compromise to reach some optimum. Secondly, only Punjab and Karachi can steer the economy of remaining backward states of Pakistan. By themselves, NWFP and Balochistan are not only economically unviable but politically unstable too. NWFP, in all likelihood will see a Talibanic revolution if not for a little moderating influence of Punjab. Again, Punjab by exercising its dominant influence can persuade the rival Bugti and Mazari tribes to the negotiating table. Left to themselves, these tribes would annhilate each other in the internecine warfare. Now add to it the strength of Islamic bond and you have a not-so-weak Pakistan. IMO, Pakistan state, despite the gloomy predictions of a few, is actually quite a stable state in political sense, though lawless. Those who think that Pakistan will disintegrate are exaggerating the negative factors and overlooking the balance of power and economic factors that ties the fate of one state to the other. However Pakistan may continue to see the lawlessness for a couple of decades, thanks to the gross socio-economic mismanagement- an inevitable fallout of the corrupt leaders and jihadi culture.
#162 Posted by arjun_m on March 5, 2003 2:33:10 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#161 Posted by FarooqA on March 5, 2003 12:48:25 pm
Stuka,
Ok, he did not say exactly that, but may be I was alluding to the common practice of heaping the blame on each other, both Indians and Pakistanis indulge in it and I am quite averse to it.
Ok, he did not say exactly that, but may be I was alluding to the common practice of heaping the blame on each other, both Indians and Pakistanis indulge in it and I am quite averse to it.
#160 Posted by Faruk on March 5, 2003 9:42:45 am
Rshridhar # 142
“I am not trying to generalise. Besides, your experience is different from mine.
Did you see the muslims in India come out and celebrate India`s victory against Pakis in cricket? Here was a great opportunity. Cricket, among other things, binds Indians like nothing else does. Well meaning muslims chose to remain silent. Some miscreants cheered the Pakistanis creating trouble in Banglore and other places. “
Hey what about the celebrations in Mahim (Mumbai), Old Delhi, Jamia (Delhi) etc. All these are overwhelming muslim areas. I am not sure how many non muslims were part of these celebrations but these are overwhelming muslim areas.
“It is entirely possible that VHP and other elements were also involved. But the point is, when the entire nation was celebrating, the muslims of India were not visible in that celebration. What have they to lose? After all, there were 2 muslim cricketers in the team.”
What about the celebrations in front of Kaif`s house. Did you confirm that all the folks there were non muslim ?
“ This is just an eg i gave. It is a fact that majority of muslims in India do not try to assimilate. Your experience (in Kerala) may be different. That does not still change the picture. “
You chose a bad example. The problem is not what happened but what you choose to see, that does change the picture.
“More and more younger generation Indians in India are associating muslims and Islam with Pakistan. It is for the muslims to come out and say emphatically where they belong.
Sridhar “
There is no gainsaying that fundamentalism is on the rise in India and Indian muslims are as much to blame as everyone else. But the Indian muslims have come out emphatically where they belong, they chose to stay in India after partition .You started out by saying that you don`t want to generalise, but its exactly what you are trying to do. You are trying to pin a stereotype on the Indian muslims. You are trying to justify your bigotry by trying the victim.
Faruk.
“I am not trying to generalise. Besides, your experience is different from mine.
Did you see the muslims in India come out and celebrate India`s victory against Pakis in cricket? Here was a great opportunity. Cricket, among other things, binds Indians like nothing else does. Well meaning muslims chose to remain silent. Some miscreants cheered the Pakistanis creating trouble in Banglore and other places. “
Hey what about the celebrations in Mahim (Mumbai), Old Delhi, Jamia (Delhi) etc. All these are overwhelming muslim areas. I am not sure how many non muslims were part of these celebrations but these are overwhelming muslim areas.
“It is entirely possible that VHP and other elements were also involved. But the point is, when the entire nation was celebrating, the muslims of India were not visible in that celebration. What have they to lose? After all, there were 2 muslim cricketers in the team.”
What about the celebrations in front of Kaif`s house. Did you confirm that all the folks there were non muslim ?
“ This is just an eg i gave. It is a fact that majority of muslims in India do not try to assimilate. Your experience (in Kerala) may be different. That does not still change the picture. “
You chose a bad example. The problem is not what happened but what you choose to see, that does change the picture.
“More and more younger generation Indians in India are associating muslims and Islam with Pakistan. It is for the muslims to come out and say emphatically where they belong.
Sridhar “
There is no gainsaying that fundamentalism is on the rise in India and Indian muslims are as much to blame as everyone else. But the Indian muslims have come out emphatically where they belong, they chose to stay in India after partition .You started out by saying that you don`t want to generalise, but its exactly what you are trying to do. You are trying to pin a stereotype on the Indian muslims. You are trying to justify your bigotry by trying the victim.
Faruk.
#159 Posted by roohi on March 5, 2003 9:12:33 am
LOL Sadna - thanks for posting this link :-) RSridhar could you take a good look (CHASHMA laga kay please)!!! Would you say the Bharat Army (http://www.bharatarmy.com/) are not loyal Brits too ?
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=298427
For those who can`t read Hindi - the sign says
Sun lay beta Pakistan - Baap hai tera Hindustan
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=298427
For those who can`t read Hindi - the sign says
Sun lay beta Pakistan - Baap hai tera Hindustan
#158 Posted by stuka on March 5, 2003 9:12:32 am
FarooqA:
You don`t get it do you? Read his post again..where is he absolving India?
In fact his statement that the lawbreakers should be punished, be they in Maharashtra, Gujarat or Delhi, takes to task the Indian establishment for not implementing the law correctly.
Please show me which exact sentence inplies that Musharraf is responsible for India`s internal dynamics?
You don`t get it do you? Read his post again..where is he absolving India?
In fact his statement that the lawbreakers should be punished, be they in Maharashtra, Gujarat or Delhi, takes to task the Indian establishment for not implementing the law correctly.
Please show me which exact sentence inplies that Musharraf is responsible for India`s internal dynamics?
#157 Posted by FarooqA on March 5, 2003 7:48:26 am
Well sameerJB you cannot absolve India of being an oppressive society for dalits and minorities by slandering Musharraf, he has as little to with India`s internal conflicts as Vajpayee may have with Pakistan`s internal problems, like all other Indian and Pakistani leaders he is a victim of complex circumstances. For God`s sake dont talk nonsense simply to prove that you are a pure and unadultrated Indian.
#156 Posted by SameerJB on March 5, 2003 7:07:45 am
Humsab: I have the power to open but not close any thread. It was just dropped out of front page access after about 1200 posts. Now Dullabhatti will soon start a new one to replace the old one.
Waving flag or celebrating exuberantly is just one minor form of patriotism. In US also, blacks and Hispanics take less interest in celebrating independence day. The important thing for the citizens of a country is be law-abiding citizen as best form of patriotism. While Indian Muslims can be criticized for too Islamic, following retrogressive practices that lead to backwardness but that is not against any law. A person praying over and over without taking care of wordly affairs is bad but not law breaking. No law in India stops people from practicing their religion vigorously. On the other hand a cheering patriotic crowd might be law breaking by raising communal slogans, delivering hateful speeches, blocking traffic or throwing stone at community they do not like.
I dislike Musharraf for this very reason without challenging his patriotism. Similalry those who break law in India should be more criticized than stupidity without breaking any law. The law breakers in any civil society should pay for the crime be he Musharraf, mastermind of Al-Qaeda or the one who planned murder of 2300 Sikhs following Indira assassination or mastermind of Gujrat riots or the people who killed thousands in Mumbai following Babri Mosque destruction. Once some of them scotfree due to the power behind them, it decreases the enthusiasm of the losing community for active participation.
So, the first step towards patriotic and civil society is respect for the law and justice for all. A crime is a crime no matter how one looks at it and stupidity of certain cultural/ religious practices itself delivers justice in the form of backwarness and decline in the standards of living.
Waving flag or celebrating exuberantly is just one minor form of patriotism. In US also, blacks and Hispanics take less interest in celebrating independence day. The important thing for the citizens of a country is be law-abiding citizen as best form of patriotism. While Indian Muslims can be criticized for too Islamic, following retrogressive practices that lead to backwardness but that is not against any law. A person praying over and over without taking care of wordly affairs is bad but not law breaking. No law in India stops people from practicing their religion vigorously. On the other hand a cheering patriotic crowd might be law breaking by raising communal slogans, delivering hateful speeches, blocking traffic or throwing stone at community they do not like.
I dislike Musharraf for this very reason without challenging his patriotism. Similalry those who break law in India should be more criticized than stupidity without breaking any law. The law breakers in any civil society should pay for the crime be he Musharraf, mastermind of Al-Qaeda or the one who planned murder of 2300 Sikhs following Indira assassination or mastermind of Gujrat riots or the people who killed thousands in Mumbai following Babri Mosque destruction. Once some of them scotfree due to the power behind them, it decreases the enthusiasm of the losing community for active participation.
So, the first step towards patriotic and civil society is respect for the law and justice for all. A crime is a crime no matter how one looks at it and stupidity of certain cultural/ religious practices itself delivers justice in the form of backwarness and decline in the standards of living.
#155 Posted by nasah on March 4, 2003 11:25:55 pm
``I suggest Indian Muslims to try to become more nationalistic in cultural sense. Become ardent Bengali, Marathi, Gujrati, Tamils etc instead of taking refuge in religion or behind Gandhi-Nehru ideals``(sameerjb)
a great UNIFYING advice sameerjb -- to the citizens of a land -- DIVIDED -- by 360 languages, dialects, castes, creeds, sects, religions:-)
what makes you think that a Bihari Muslim is not an idiot Bihari first – and then a Muslim -- or a Bengali Muslim is not a cunning Bengali first?
your championing of `petty provincialism` is astoundingly amusing –
-- no thanks:--)
a great UNIFYING advice sameerjb -- to the citizens of a land -- DIVIDED -- by 360 languages, dialects, castes, creeds, sects, religions:-)
what makes you think that a Bihari Muslim is not an idiot Bihari first – and then a Muslim -- or a Bengali Muslim is not a cunning Bengali first?
your championing of `petty provincialism` is astoundingly amusing –
-- no thanks:--)
#154 Posted by jay on March 4, 2003 11:25:55 pm
WHO IS A PAKISTANI,
When the sheikh chappie, the alquida man was arrested the pak interior minister said that he is going no where, he is a pakistani. Now that he is on the way to quantanamo bay, pakistanis are telling that even though he had a pak pass port he was not a pakistani.
I can hear the buzzing of the crowd, lilaha illalla pakistan ka matlab kya. There are times when one had to feel ashamed of ones country, the time has come for pakistanis.
Dawood Ibrahim, he is a proud honoured guest to their country, he is like many in pakistan, a jihadist returned after mission in india.
When the sheikh chappie, the alquida man was arrested the pak interior minister said that he is going no where, he is a pakistani. Now that he is on the way to quantanamo bay, pakistanis are telling that even though he had a pak pass port he was not a pakistani.
I can hear the buzzing of the crowd, lilaha illalla pakistan ka matlab kya. There are times when one had to feel ashamed of ones country, the time has come for pakistanis.
Dawood Ibrahim, he is a proud honoured guest to their country, he is like many in pakistan, a jihadist returned after mission in india.
#153 Posted by Humsab on March 4, 2003 11:25:55 pm
Sameer JB ji
``How can you expect Muslims to show emotions in the middle of riots breaking out in Ahmedabad after Indian victory. It takes two to tango.``
You are right about it takes two to tango. In Gujarat, as per reports riots started when Victory procession of over enthusiastic people after India`s win over Pakistan was pelted with stones etc., I guess by miscreants wanting to create peoblem. Anyhow, Police should have been prepared in advance or it should not have allowed that procession to go through senstive areas.
Regards
P.S. Tussi punjabi channel band kyoN kar ditta?
``How can you expect Muslims to show emotions in the middle of riots breaking out in Ahmedabad after Indian victory. It takes two to tango.``
You are right about it takes two to tango. In Gujarat, as per reports riots started when Victory procession of over enthusiastic people after India`s win over Pakistan was pelted with stones etc., I guess by miscreants wanting to create peoblem. Anyhow, Police should have been prepared in advance or it should not have allowed that procession to go through senstive areas.
Regards
P.S. Tussi punjabi channel band kyoN kar ditta?
#152 Posted by Tipu on March 4, 2003 9:20:19 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#151 Posted by SameerJB on March 4, 2003 9:20:03 pm
sadna & Pankaj: My comments in the previous post were about `what should have been`. I am not advocating break up of India and Pakistan under current circumstances. However, circumstances and with it opinions can change. Only one sentence in that lengthy post, `Islamabad and New Delhi should be like Strossburg (Europian Union Headquarter in France)` vaguely pointed to more national (I consider Panjabi, Tamil, Bengali,...................nations) independence without stressing upon the level or model and definitely through muyual agreement and peaceful means.
The question of being at ease all over or having diverse family or experience is minor thing. Nations under friendly relationship do not stop people from traveling or marrying outside culture. Much more Americans and Canadians inter-marry and travel freely; same is true for Europeans. I agree with Pankaj that India is more like a major part of Indian civilization. But a civilization does not have to have same culture, language or country. I am very opposed to one of everything route in order to create unity or harmony.
Even in diasporic desis, culture based relationship are dominating over national based organizations. Three largest groups in NY/ NJ, namely Gujratis, Bengalis and Panjabis interact predominantly within culture.
rsridhar: I suppose Hindus should also have proven acceptance of Muslims in Gujrat elections by rejecting Narendra Modi and BJP. How can you expect Muslims to show emotions in the middle of riots breaking out in Ahmedabad after Indian victory. It takes two to tango.
On one side you and many other keep talking telling us that Pakistan does not matter for most Indians (something like India is about to reach for stars with 460 dollars per capita income and Pakistan is in the dirt with paltry 450 dollars per capita income) and it is Pakistan out there to prove un-Indianness at every opportunity. Did India celebrate same way when they beat England? I did not hear any rioting after India beat England.
In one area, Indian movie industry Muslims have been well represented for all 56 years since independence. When did they not prove their Indianness? Name one movie by a Muslm which could be considered pro-Pakistan or anti-Hindu. The fact is that whenever and whoever got a chance to serve India, they did to the best of their abilities. The issue of trying too much to preserve a distinct orthodox and conservative Muslim identity is onething which I also have often disliked but to make it anti-Indian is not true. Both parties on eitehr side of Babri Masjid as well as Gujrat riots were equally Indian. A person tearing down the mosque can no way claim to be more Indian than the one who is trying to stop him from doing it. However, one party was taking the law into their own hand.
I suggest Indian Muslims to try to become more nationalistic in cultural sense. Become ardent Bengali, Marathi, Gujrati, Tamils etc instead of taking refuge in religion or behind Gandhi-Nehru ideals. They should vote local parties instead of major national level parties like Congress or BJP.
The question of being at ease all over or having diverse family or experience is minor thing. Nations under friendly relationship do not stop people from traveling or marrying outside culture. Much more Americans and Canadians inter-marry and travel freely; same is true for Europeans. I agree with Pankaj that India is more like a major part of Indian civilization. But a civilization does not have to have same culture, language or country. I am very opposed to one of everything route in order to create unity or harmony.
Even in diasporic desis, culture based relationship are dominating over national based organizations. Three largest groups in NY/ NJ, namely Gujratis, Bengalis and Panjabis interact predominantly within culture.
rsridhar: I suppose Hindus should also have proven acceptance of Muslims in Gujrat elections by rejecting Narendra Modi and BJP. How can you expect Muslims to show emotions in the middle of riots breaking out in Ahmedabad after Indian victory. It takes two to tango.
On one side you and many other keep talking telling us that Pakistan does not matter for most Indians (something like India is about to reach for stars with 460 dollars per capita income and Pakistan is in the dirt with paltry 450 dollars per capita income) and it is Pakistan out there to prove un-Indianness at every opportunity. Did India celebrate same way when they beat England? I did not hear any rioting after India beat England.
In one area, Indian movie industry Muslims have been well represented for all 56 years since independence. When did they not prove their Indianness? Name one movie by a Muslm which could be considered pro-Pakistan or anti-Hindu. The fact is that whenever and whoever got a chance to serve India, they did to the best of their abilities. The issue of trying too much to preserve a distinct orthodox and conservative Muslim identity is onething which I also have often disliked but to make it anti-Indian is not true. Both parties on eitehr side of Babri Masjid as well as Gujrat riots were equally Indian. A person tearing down the mosque can no way claim to be more Indian than the one who is trying to stop him from doing it. However, one party was taking the law into their own hand.
I suggest Indian Muslims to try to become more nationalistic in cultural sense. Become ardent Bengali, Marathi, Gujrati, Tamils etc instead of taking refuge in religion or behind Gandhi-Nehru ideals. They should vote local parties instead of major national level parties like Congress or BJP.
#150 Posted by nasah on March 4, 2003 9:20:03 pm
``Are you God with a million eyes to keep watch on 130 million people and pronounce judgement on them?
I read in a news report that Muslims came out to celebrate in Mumbai. But I donot need news reports. I am not better than my Muslim countrymen that they have to prove something to ME. Neither are you, rsridhar.``(sadna)
well said dhukhtar-e aalaa-e Hind -- Sadna Begum!
I read in a news report that Muslims came out to celebrate in Mumbai. But I donot need news reports. I am not better than my Muslim countrymen that they have to prove something to ME. Neither are you, rsridhar.``(sadna)
well said dhukhtar-e aalaa-e Hind -- Sadna Begum!
#149 Posted by rsridhar on March 4, 2003 9:20:02 pm
re:#143 by sadna
Read Rafiq Zakaria`s views on Indian muslims. Unlike you and me, he is considered an expert on Islam and has been writing books and researching on matters concerning Indian muslims.
Excerpts from the book ``Communal Rage in Secular India``:
1. ``Indian Muslims must try and become an integral part of the mainstream`; `get out of their ghetto mentality`; `do some introspection`. If asked `whether they have genuinely tried to contribute to the strengthening of Hindu-Muslim relations since Partition`, the `answer will be no.``
2. ``They must open their eyes to the ground reality that an increasing number of Hindus have begun to hate them...it has infected the rich as much as the poor; men as much as women; the young as much as the old. Even children are no longer free from it.``
3. ``Instead of coming out openly against Pakistan and taking a strong stand against the jihadis, the so-called guardians of Indian Muslims spend most of their time in running their own political shops to buttress their communal leadership.``
4. ``Muslims are multiplying fast, much more than Hindus. The Census figures, decade after decade, confirm it. Muslims have not taken to family planning `as seriously as the Hindus`; this has to be corrected. ``Indian Muslims must disown the bigotism which has made Muslims pariahs everywhere. They must give to non-Muslims the assurance that their religion stands for `live and let live.` ``Instead of talking it over with Hindus, `confrontation was adopted` by Muslims on the Babri masjid issue, giving `rise to more hatred against the Muslims.` ``There is meaningless `controversy` about Muslims singing Vande Mataram. Muslims `must stand up when it is sung as a mark of respect to an anthem,` which has a hoary past.``
Being secular does not mean being blind to the realities. The reality is that there is a widening gulf between the 2 communities and muslims in India need to take pro-active steps to bridge the gap. They cannot continue to sleep under the shadow of pseudo-secularism of the Nehruvian era.
Sridhar
Read Rafiq Zakaria`s views on Indian muslims. Unlike you and me, he is considered an expert on Islam and has been writing books and researching on matters concerning Indian muslims.
Excerpts from the book ``Communal Rage in Secular India``:
1. ``Indian Muslims must try and become an integral part of the mainstream`; `get out of their ghetto mentality`; `do some introspection`. If asked `whether they have genuinely tried to contribute to the strengthening of Hindu-Muslim relations since Partition`, the `answer will be no.``
2. ``They must open their eyes to the ground reality that an increasing number of Hindus have begun to hate them...it has infected the rich as much as the poor; men as much as women; the young as much as the old. Even children are no longer free from it.``
3. ``Instead of coming out openly against Pakistan and taking a strong stand against the jihadis, the so-called guardians of Indian Muslims spend most of their time in running their own political shops to buttress their communal leadership.``
4. ``Muslims are multiplying fast, much more than Hindus. The Census figures, decade after decade, confirm it. Muslims have not taken to family planning `as seriously as the Hindus`; this has to be corrected. ``Indian Muslims must disown the bigotism which has made Muslims pariahs everywhere. They must give to non-Muslims the assurance that their religion stands for `live and let live.` ``Instead of talking it over with Hindus, `confrontation was adopted` by Muslims on the Babri masjid issue, giving `rise to more hatred against the Muslims.` ``There is meaningless `controversy` about Muslims singing Vande Mataram. Muslims `must stand up when it is sung as a mark of respect to an anthem,` which has a hoary past.``
Being secular does not mean being blind to the realities. The reality is that there is a widening gulf between the 2 communities and muslims in India need to take pro-active steps to bridge the gap. They cannot continue to sleep under the shadow of pseudo-secularism of the Nehruvian era.
Sridhar
#148 Posted by harish_hyd on March 4, 2003 9:20:02 pm
#142 by rsridhar, #143 by sadna
Sridhar, though you say your conclusion is based on experience, you cannot generalize it. I have quite a few Muslim friends, and I can vouch for their patriotism. During a match, they root for India as much as I do. Why, just the other day, when India was playing Pakistan, I visited a hospital in which my uncle was sharing a room with an elderly Muslim lady. Every Tendulkar shot was lustily cheered by her relatives (who`d come to visit her), and she herself was very dejected when Tendulya eventually got out. Now, that`s my experience. What do I make of it?
Sridhar, though you say your conclusion is based on experience, you cannot generalize it. I have quite a few Muslim friends, and I can vouch for their patriotism. During a match, they root for India as much as I do. Why, just the other day, when India was playing Pakistan, I visited a hospital in which my uncle was sharing a room with an elderly Muslim lady. Every Tendulkar shot was lustily cheered by her relatives (who`d come to visit her), and she herself was very dejected when Tendulya eventually got out. Now, that`s my experience. What do I make of it?
#147 Posted by rsridhar on March 4, 2003 9:20:02 pm
re:#140 by stuka
My secularism has nothing to do with all this. We have to confront realities. Besides, this is not my view alone. After all, my views do not count for much. I live in US and i just share some experiences that i have had during my stay in India. That is all.
More importantly, people like Rafiq Zakaria have been pointing to the widening gulf between the 2 communities and the ``Ostrich-like`` attitude of Indian muslims. Little introspection went on as to where the community is headed since independence. Muslims were treated as a ``vote bank`` by Congress. Much of the secular attitudes of Congress era is dissipating and a new crop of politicians (like Modi) are raring to change the way hindus think and act. Muslims in India today face a real danger of being completely isolated. They need to do what is in their best interest. Closing their eyes to the happenings around them will not help.
Sridhar
My secularism has nothing to do with all this. We have to confront realities. Besides, this is not my view alone. After all, my views do not count for much. I live in US and i just share some experiences that i have had during my stay in India. That is all.
More importantly, people like Rafiq Zakaria have been pointing to the widening gulf between the 2 communities and the ``Ostrich-like`` attitude of Indian muslims. Little introspection went on as to where the community is headed since independence. Muslims were treated as a ``vote bank`` by Congress. Much of the secular attitudes of Congress era is dissipating and a new crop of politicians (like Modi) are raring to change the way hindus think and act. Muslims in India today face a real danger of being completely isolated. They need to do what is in their best interest. Closing their eyes to the happenings around them will not help.
Sridhar
#146 Posted by rsridhar on March 4, 2003 9:20:02 pm
re:#141 by FarooqA
Both hindu and muslim fundamentalism have existed since independence. Hindu extremist views stood discredited after the assasination of Gandhiji. These views never found a mass appeal until recently. But there have always been supporters belonging to the fringe elements since independence.
Today, BJP has latched on to fighting terrorism (by implication ``islamic terrorism) as a political tool. By equating terrorism with Islam, BJP seeks to isolate muslims and benefit from hindu votes.
Indian muslims can turn the tide against BJP by coming out in force against fundamentalism.
Sridhar
Both hindu and muslim fundamentalism have existed since independence. Hindu extremist views stood discredited after the assasination of Gandhiji. These views never found a mass appeal until recently. But there have always been supporters belonging to the fringe elements since independence.
Today, BJP has latched on to fighting terrorism (by implication ``islamic terrorism) as a political tool. By equating terrorism with Islam, BJP seeks to isolate muslims and benefit from hindu votes.
Indian muslims can turn the tide against BJP by coming out in force against fundamentalism.
Sridhar
#145 Posted by Humsab on March 4, 2003 9:20:02 pm
rsridhar # 142
Yes, they did. As per newspaper reports, a big group of them in Kolkata were celeberating India`s victory and were beaten up by a few (12) who were pro pak.
In any case I don`t think any one of us have any business in questioning any body`s loyalty just because some people did n`t wear their happiness on sleave. Yes, if people are openly pro-pak, then we do tend to resent, rightly or wrongly, i don`t know. But still I don`t think this is such a big issue.
Regards
Yes, they did. As per newspaper reports, a big group of them in Kolkata were celeberating India`s victory and were beaten up by a few (12) who were pro pak.
In any case I don`t think any one of us have any business in questioning any body`s loyalty just because some people did n`t wear their happiness on sleave. Yes, if people are openly pro-pak, then we do tend to resent, rightly or wrongly, i don`t know. But still I don`t think this is such a big issue.
Regards
#144 Posted by tahmed32 on March 4, 2003 1:11:02 pm
jay #138 you write ``the ilks of tahmed are only supporting dawood ibrahim. ``
Aha! Lies! So now you resort to the last resort of the scoundrel!! (If you dont agree, cut and paste anything I ever wrote about dawood ibrahim - he is just another one of your kind kind of subhumans.)
PS: Dont flatter yourself into thinking I read the rest of your post, given that I long ago started skipping over your boring, one-track posts. If you are not careful, you will bore yourself to death.
Aha! Lies! So now you resort to the last resort of the scoundrel!! (If you dont agree, cut and paste anything I ever wrote about dawood ibrahim - he is just another one of your kind kind of subhumans.)
PS: Dont flatter yourself into thinking I read the rest of your post, given that I long ago started skipping over your boring, one-track posts. If you are not careful, you will bore yourself to death.
#143 Posted by sadna on March 4, 2003 9:40:48 am
rsridhar #142
``Did you see the muslims in India come out and celebrate India`s victory against Pakis in cricket?``
How would I or you `see` them even if they did rsridhar? Are you God with a million eyes to keep watch on 130 million people and pronounce judgement on them?
I read in a news report that Muslims came out to celebrate in Mumbai. But I donot need news reports. I am not better than my Muslim countrymen that they have to prove something to ME. Neither are you, rsridhar.
``Did you see the muslims in India come out and celebrate India`s victory against Pakis in cricket?``
How would I or you `see` them even if they did rsridhar? Are you God with a million eyes to keep watch on 130 million people and pronounce judgement on them?
I read in a news report that Muslims came out to celebrate in Mumbai. But I donot need news reports. I am not better than my Muslim countrymen that they have to prove something to ME. Neither are you, rsridhar.
#142 Posted by rsridhar on March 4, 2003 8:28:39 am
re:#136 by sadna
I am not trying to generalise. Besides, your experience is different from mine.
Did you see the muslims in India come out and celebrate India`s victory against Pakis in cricket? Here was a great opportunity. Cricket, among other things, binds Indians like nothing else does. Well meaning muslims chose to remain silent. Some miscreants cheered the Pakistanis creating trouble in Banglore and other places.
It is entirely possible that VHP and other elements were also involved. But the point is, when the entire nation was celebrating, the muslims of India were not visible in that celebration. What have they to lose? After all, there were 2 muslim cricketers in the team. This is just an eg i gave. It is a fact that majority of muslims in India do not try to assimilate. Your experience (in Kerala) may be different. That does not still change the picture.
More and more younger generation Indians in India are associating muslims and Islam with Pakistan. It is for the muslims to come out and say emphatically where they belong.
Sridhar
I am not trying to generalise. Besides, your experience is different from mine.
Did you see the muslims in India come out and celebrate India`s victory against Pakis in cricket? Here was a great opportunity. Cricket, among other things, binds Indians like nothing else does. Well meaning muslims chose to remain silent. Some miscreants cheered the Pakistanis creating trouble in Banglore and other places.
It is entirely possible that VHP and other elements were also involved. But the point is, when the entire nation was celebrating, the muslims of India were not visible in that celebration. What have they to lose? After all, there were 2 muslim cricketers in the team. This is just an eg i gave. It is a fact that majority of muslims in India do not try to assimilate. Your experience (in Kerala) may be different. That does not still change the picture.
More and more younger generation Indians in India are associating muslims and Islam with Pakistan. It is for the muslims to come out and say emphatically where they belong.
Sridhar
#141 Posted by stuka on March 4, 2003 8:28:01 am
RSridhar:
``To be democratic in a diverse nation, one has to appreciate and assimilate in that diversity. Indians (barring the muslims) are doing that everyday.``
Your claim to secularism runs very hollow. The Muslims of India are more politically aware than than the Muslims of any other country. Besides, how can you sit in judgement of 12 Crore people? I am disgusted by your statement.
``To be democratic in a diverse nation, one has to appreciate and assimilate in that diversity. Indians (barring the muslims) are doing that everyday.``
Your claim to secularism runs very hollow. The Muslims of India are more politically aware than than the Muslims of any other country. Besides, how can you sit in judgement of 12 Crore people? I am disgusted by your statement.
#140 Posted by FarooqA on March 4, 2003 8:28:01 am
Its mere naivety on the part of Javed Akhtar to suggest that the Hindu communalism is just a reaction of Muslim communalism, the argument cuts both ways, may be the Muslim communalism in India is the end product of the Hindu fundamentalism.
#139 Posted by jay on March 4, 2003 3:03:24 am
JINNAH IS DEAD, TNT IS ALIVE,
The pakistanis are again trying to say that theirs is a progressive contry not shackeled by TNT. Take the case of dawood ibrahim, he is an indian citizen, he killed more that 200 people inbombay and escaped to pakistan. He is a well protected guest in pakistan simply because his action are in tune with the direct action call, his past is not very different from that of many pakistanis who left india, he has done something akin to what the pak jihadists are doing by slipping into pakistan. It is the ideology of TNT that keeps ibrahim in pakistan, no pakistani, even on the chowk wants to say anything about ibrahim.
The great jinnah and TNT dead posters can come up with one reason other than TNT for the flourishing of ibrahim in pakistan, it would be a surprise. In the garb of decency, dead history and peace on chowk, the ilks of tahmed are only supporting dawood ibrahim.
The pakistanis are again trying to say that theirs is a progressive contry not shackeled by TNT. Take the case of dawood ibrahim, he is an indian citizen, he killed more that 200 people inbombay and escaped to pakistan. He is a well protected guest in pakistan simply because his action are in tune with the direct action call, his past is not very different from that of many pakistanis who left india, he has done something akin to what the pak jihadists are doing by slipping into pakistan. It is the ideology of TNT that keeps ibrahim in pakistan, no pakistani, even on the chowk wants to say anything about ibrahim.
The great jinnah and TNT dead posters can come up with one reason other than TNT for the flourishing of ibrahim in pakistan, it would be a surprise. In the garb of decency, dead history and peace on chowk, the ilks of tahmed are only supporting dawood ibrahim.
#138 Posted by jay on March 4, 2003 3:03:24 am
Walkout over `selective` implementation of girl child scheme
By Our Special Correspondent
HYDERABAD March 3. Congress and CPI (M) members staged a walkout in the Assembly on Monday protesting over the refusal of the Government to give an assurance on extending financial assistance to all BPL families under the Girl Child Protection Scheme.
Earlier, Congress members stalled the proceedings of the House demanding an apology from the Minister for Industries, K.Vidyadhar Rao, for his remarks against a Congress member, Vanama Venkateswara Rao.
The Leader of the Opposition, Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, charged the Government with going back on its promise of extending the scheme to all families. Several restrictions were being applied to deny the facility to many. Second girl child was not being given the assistance and it was limited to only single child families.
Dr. Rajasekhara Reddy said the assistance had been extended to only two lakh families whereas there were 1.2 crore BPL families in the State. The pending applications -- 21,361 -- pertained to only single child families and other applications had been rejected, he contended. The Chief Minister had promised to apply the scheme to every girl child born in the BPL family during elections by assuring the poor that he would be the ``Mena Mama`` (maternal uncle) for the girl.
(Later talking to presspersons he called the Chief Minister ``Kamsa Mama` (Kamsa of the Bhagavatha). Another Congress member, K.R. Suresh Reddy, said the Minister for Finance, Y. Ramakrishnudu, and the Minister for Women and Child Welfare, Saraswathi, were ``misinforming`` the House on the issue. The target had been reduced compared to last year and there was no proper clarification forthcoming on the reason, he said.
///In india we talk about female child killings, recognise it as a problem, accept the reality and even come up with some ingenious ways to reduce it. In pakistan ahmadias are killed, hindu temples are destroyed in spontaneous reaction to babri masjid demolition, only PM has ever posted this info, well the honour killings, what honour killings...well education is awaste of resources for pakistanis. No wonder that nadrassas are flourishing and in terms of human values, an educated tahmed is no different from the jihadic sayed from faisalabad.
By Our Special Correspondent
HYDERABAD March 3. Congress and CPI (M) members staged a walkout in the Assembly on Monday protesting over the refusal of the Government to give an assurance on extending financial assistance to all BPL families under the Girl Child Protection Scheme.
Earlier, Congress members stalled the proceedings of the House demanding an apology from the Minister for Industries, K.Vidyadhar Rao, for his remarks against a Congress member, Vanama Venkateswara Rao.
The Leader of the Opposition, Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, charged the Government with going back on its promise of extending the scheme to all families. Several restrictions were being applied to deny the facility to many. Second girl child was not being given the assistance and it was limited to only single child families.
Dr. Rajasekhara Reddy said the assistance had been extended to only two lakh families whereas there were 1.2 crore BPL families in the State. The pending applications -- 21,361 -- pertained to only single child families and other applications had been rejected, he contended. The Chief Minister had promised to apply the scheme to every girl child born in the BPL family during elections by assuring the poor that he would be the ``Mena Mama`` (maternal uncle) for the girl.
(Later talking to presspersons he called the Chief Minister ``Kamsa Mama` (Kamsa of the Bhagavatha). Another Congress member, K.R. Suresh Reddy, said the Minister for Finance, Y. Ramakrishnudu, and the Minister for Women and Child Welfare, Saraswathi, were ``misinforming`` the House on the issue. The target had been reduced compared to last year and there was no proper clarification forthcoming on the reason, he said.
///In india we talk about female child killings, recognise it as a problem, accept the reality and even come up with some ingenious ways to reduce it. In pakistan ahmadias are killed, hindu temples are destroyed in spontaneous reaction to babri masjid demolition, only PM has ever posted this info, well the honour killings, what honour killings...well education is awaste of resources for pakistanis. No wonder that nadrassas are flourishing and in terms of human values, an educated tahmed is no different from the jihadic sayed from faisalabad.
#137 Posted by sadna on March 3, 2003 8:45:25 pm
rsridhar #131
Please don`t generalize saying `except Muslims`. Thats not true, thats not been my experience and moreover isn`t that a rather hurtful comment to come across in a apolitical discussion about apolitical things.
btw, did you see the photo in #111 :)?
Pankaj #121
I too have always noticed the fundamental similarities under the more visible cultural/religious differences. I am just wary of using the word `civilisation` because this word seems to have acquired negative connotations in recent times.
I would imagine there is similar abundance of diversity in Pakistan and similar soceital trend towards increased mutual interaction after 1947. For example if PM Jamali had been only a Balochi(and not Pakistani as well) he could at most have been PM of only a few million Balochis. Now he is able to exercise his native Balochi genius(for example) in a much wider scope or theatre, and put it to service of a much larger group of people.
Please don`t generalize saying `except Muslims`. Thats not true, thats not been my experience and moreover isn`t that a rather hurtful comment to come across in a apolitical discussion about apolitical things.
btw, did you see the photo in #111 :)?
Pankaj #121
I too have always noticed the fundamental similarities under the more visible cultural/religious differences. I am just wary of using the word `civilisation` because this word seems to have acquired negative connotations in recent times.
I would imagine there is similar abundance of diversity in Pakistan and similar soceital trend towards increased mutual interaction after 1947. For example if PM Jamali had been only a Balochi(and not Pakistani as well) he could at most have been PM of only a few million Balochis. Now he is able to exercise his native Balochi genius(for example) in a much wider scope or theatre, and put it to service of a much larger group of people.
#136 Posted by tahmed32 on March 3, 2003 8:45:25 pm
pmishra2 #135 you write ``However, when clueless interactors pretend that Savarkar invented communalism, or that Jinnah`s Direction Action Day and Narendra Modi`s Gaurav Yatra have no connection, then we have to return to history and establish some ground facts``
I admit to being the clueless interactor who discussed Savarkar with you. Actually, I had mentioned the pomp and show with which Savarkar`s picture was placed next to Gandhi`s in the halls of the Indian Parliament - and this wasnt ancient history, this happened earlier this week. You twist this to ``Savarkar invented communalism``, and drag in events that took place half a century ago.
Thanks to you I am no longer clueless. I am well clued into how easily you twist things to prove whatever stupid point you are trying to prove.
I admit to being the clueless interactor who discussed Savarkar with you. Actually, I had mentioned the pomp and show with which Savarkar`s picture was placed next to Gandhi`s in the halls of the Indian Parliament - and this wasnt ancient history, this happened earlier this week. You twist this to ``Savarkar invented communalism``, and drag in events that took place half a century ago.
Thanks to you I am no longer clueless. I am well clued into how easily you twist things to prove whatever stupid point you are trying to prove.
#135 Posted by pmishra2 on March 3, 2003 12:42:32 pm
No one is arguing that we have to re-hash history here over and over. However, when clueless interactors pretend that Savarkar invented communalism, or that Jinnah`s Direction Action Day and Narendra Modi`s Gaurav Yatra have no connection, then we have to return to history and establish some ground facts.
I have argued repeatedly that politicians like Nehru and Jinnah bungled the transfer of power from the British very badly. That their legacies include a certain amount of raw political maneuvering for which the price was finally paid in the 10`s of thousands of lives. I dont see this as being obsessed by the past.
Finally, pakistani respondents have to understand that fundamentally indians have no interest in them. This includes invasion, economic union, etc. etc. Other than some humanitarian interactions (divided families) there is no reason for wishing any other special relationship. Perhaps once Musharraf is out of the scene a cold peace may be possible some years out.
The accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India involved a special relationship between the indian union and J&K. This needs to be restored with some creativity in place.
This is the course that intelligent commentators like Sumit Ganguly has repeatedly stressed and highlighted (and people like ylh and sarwari have repeatedly called Sumit Ganguly a hindu fascist!). I can easily imagine a future in which the Kashmir valley receives the grant of autonomy it seeks (``azadi``), while the remainder of J&K is bound closer to India. All of this requires peace, the return of pandits and normal economic ties. None of this is possible as long as the madrassahs keep churning out their mad murderers.
I have argued repeatedly that politicians like Nehru and Jinnah bungled the transfer of power from the British very badly. That their legacies include a certain amount of raw political maneuvering for which the price was finally paid in the 10`s of thousands of lives. I dont see this as being obsessed by the past.
Finally, pakistani respondents have to understand that fundamentally indians have no interest in them. This includes invasion, economic union, etc. etc. Other than some humanitarian interactions (divided families) there is no reason for wishing any other special relationship. Perhaps once Musharraf is out of the scene a cold peace may be possible some years out.
The accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India involved a special relationship between the indian union and J&K. This needs to be restored with some creativity in place.
This is the course that intelligent commentators like Sumit Ganguly has repeatedly stressed and highlighted (and people like ylh and sarwari have repeatedly called Sumit Ganguly a hindu fascist!). I can easily imagine a future in which the Kashmir valley receives the grant of autonomy it seeks (``azadi``), while the remainder of J&K is bound closer to India. All of this requires peace, the return of pandits and normal economic ties. None of this is possible as long as the madrassahs keep churning out their mad murderers.
#134 Posted by harimau on March 3, 2003 9:07:17 am
Ref YLH2 #114
[.... with an Independent and peaceful Kashmir we will effectively bury the threat of nuclear war... ]
Yasser, dear boy, try telling Uncle Musharraf that Kashmir ought to be independent. He will tell you the NAME of the Pakistani-stolen part is AZAD Kashmir. That, dear boy, is as close to Independence as Kashmir will ever get.
And please stop this nonsense of ``Stop me before I unleash the nukes``. One more threat and Pakistan will be disarmed by the US. In case you dodn`t know this, the US is not worried about The Hindu Bomb falling into the hands of the Hindutva-wadis. On the other hand, there IS serious concern about the Islamic Bomb.
[You are welcomed anytime in my house in Lahore...]
Yasser, dear boy, come to Chennai anytime you want. I will meet you at the airport and put you up at my home and show you around. It might actually open up your eyes as to the reality of India as opposed to what you read in the Frontier Post.
[.... with an Independent and peaceful Kashmir we will effectively bury the threat of nuclear war... ]
Yasser, dear boy, try telling Uncle Musharraf that Kashmir ought to be independent. He will tell you the NAME of the Pakistani-stolen part is AZAD Kashmir. That, dear boy, is as close to Independence as Kashmir will ever get.
And please stop this nonsense of ``Stop me before I unleash the nukes``. One more threat and Pakistan will be disarmed by the US. In case you dodn`t know this, the US is not worried about The Hindu Bomb falling into the hands of the Hindutva-wadis. On the other hand, there IS serious concern about the Islamic Bomb.
[You are welcomed anytime in my house in Lahore...]
Yasser, dear boy, come to Chennai anytime you want. I will meet you at the airport and put you up at my home and show you around. It might actually open up your eyes as to the reality of India as opposed to what you read in the Frontier Post.
#133 Posted by rsridhar on March 3, 2003 9:07:16 am
re:#119 by sadna
A good post Sadna.
By now, you should know how Pakistanis (at least in Chowk) think. My own impression (after interacting here for 2 years, perhaps more) is that many Pakis have no inkling of how democracy works. To be democratic in a diverse nation, one has to appreciate and assimilate in that diversity. Indians (barring the muslims) are doing that everyday. pakistanis are unable to do that. Indians in general have more faith in their institutions than Pakis do in theirs. The only institution Pakis swear by is the Army, which is taking them down an abyss.
I, as a Tamilian, grew up in Delhi. I was a third generation Delhite until i migrated to US. We grew up among Punjabees (mostly expatriates from Pak). It was a great interaction and we were like a family. Once a year, my parents would visit Madras to see their relatives. Sometimes, they would just leave us (me and my brother) with a Punjabee neighbour who was very close. We were happy being left alone with them. When my parents settled down in Madras later on, many of our neighbours visited us and we kept that interaction going. Looking back, those were very happy days in my life.
I know a cousin of my, a doctor in Delhi, who married a Punjabee. Their parents are very traditional and speak Hindi with difficulty! There is tremendous interaction going on in India among people at all levels. One has to live in India to experience that. Armchair theorists like Sameer do not get the picture.
Sridhar
A good post Sadna.
By now, you should know how Pakistanis (at least in Chowk) think. My own impression (after interacting here for 2 years, perhaps more) is that many Pakis have no inkling of how democracy works. To be democratic in a diverse nation, one has to appreciate and assimilate in that diversity. Indians (barring the muslims) are doing that everyday. pakistanis are unable to do that. Indians in general have more faith in their institutions than Pakis do in theirs. The only institution Pakis swear by is the Army, which is taking them down an abyss.
I, as a Tamilian, grew up in Delhi. I was a third generation Delhite until i migrated to US. We grew up among Punjabees (mostly expatriates from Pak). It was a great interaction and we were like a family. Once a year, my parents would visit Madras to see their relatives. Sometimes, they would just leave us (me and my brother) with a Punjabee neighbour who was very close. We were happy being left alone with them. When my parents settled down in Madras later on, many of our neighbours visited us and we kept that interaction going. Looking back, those were very happy days in my life.
I know a cousin of my, a doctor in Delhi, who married a Punjabee. Their parents are very traditional and speak Hindi with difficulty! There is tremendous interaction going on in India among people at all levels. One has to live in India to experience that. Armchair theorists like Sameer do not get the picture.
Sridhar
#132 Posted by arjun_m on March 3, 2003 9:07:16 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#131 Posted by tahmed32 on March 3, 2003 9:07:16 am
Pankaj #121 I agree that Sameerjb is offtrack when he thinks India should break up into several countries. This is a superficial way of looking at things.
The fact is that when people from different cultures work together, live in the same neigborhood, have children going to the same school, they tend to lose consciousenss of their perceived differences (racial, religious, ethnic, nationality) and start seeing each other for what they are - as individuals, with their own distinct personalities and levels of intellectual development.
I hope that India flourishes as a great multiethnic secular democracy, and slowly but steadily solves its problems of poverty, hindu chauvinism (and this includes the mindset of the BJP mainstream politicians, not just the hindu extremists), and mob violence. I have no doubt that time is on the side of the progressive forces in India, not the regressive ones.
The fact is that when people from different cultures work together, live in the same neigborhood, have children going to the same school, they tend to lose consciousenss of their perceived differences (racial, religious, ethnic, nationality) and start seeing each other for what they are - as individuals, with their own distinct personalities and levels of intellectual development.
I hope that India flourishes as a great multiethnic secular democracy, and slowly but steadily solves its problems of poverty, hindu chauvinism (and this includes the mindset of the BJP mainstream politicians, not just the hindu extremists), and mob violence. I have no doubt that time is on the side of the progressive forces in India, not the regressive ones.
#130 Posted by Tipu on March 3, 2003 9:03:36 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#129 Posted by veeresh on March 3, 2003 12:56:08 am
Yasser speak also known as OODA loop = observe - orient - decide - act . . . repeat as often as required and whenever any of the parameters change . . . so for once I agree with Yasser (as long as he agrees with me?) that what is wrong with strategy based on changing environment and ground realities?
After all, that is life, right?
In this case, arjunm122, don`t you think we should all celebrate Yasser` change (for the better?),
Though I do find his fascination for Khushwant Singh rather off. Harry Potter I would understand.
After all, that is life, right?
In this case, arjunm122, don`t you think we should all celebrate Yasser` change (for the better?),
Though I do find his fascination for Khushwant Singh rather off. Harry Potter I would understand.
#128 Posted by Tipu on March 3, 2003 12:56:08 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#127 Posted by Piscatiqua on March 3, 2003 12:56:07 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#126 Posted by jay on March 3, 2003 12:56:07 am
YLH and other peace nicks,
It amazing to see these good hearted people talking about economic progress, how the progress of india is tied to that of pakistan.
It is time that pakistanis accept the fact that with or woth out peace with pakistan india will progress. Every country need to have military spending and the indian expenditure of 3 percent of GDP, around 15 percentage of budget is not very high. Importantly india has the fundamentals right, an educated population, democratic system and it is self sustaining. India has high saving rate, finally an image of confidence and competance.
With 40 percent of the budget on military, the rest for dbt repayment, no educational infrastructure and with its great image there is no hope for pakistan. Only way the pak military bidget can be reduced is through a peace deal with india. India should ignore pakistan, tell pakistan to continue with jihadic attacks, acquire sofisticated military equipment, integrate military production and weapons exports. Eventually there could a time when pakistan can contained by routime bombing raids as in palestine.
At last indians are accepting the fact that there can be no peace on jihadic frontier, it can only be acceptable kill ratios. With the return of taliban and alquida from afghanistan, the jihadisation of pakistan is expected to accelerate. Jihadic Republic of Pakistan has a ring to it.
It amazing to see these good hearted people talking about economic progress, how the progress of india is tied to that of pakistan.
It is time that pakistanis accept the fact that with or woth out peace with pakistan india will progress. Every country need to have military spending and the indian expenditure of 3 percent of GDP, around 15 percentage of budget is not very high. Importantly india has the fundamentals right, an educated population, democratic system and it is self sustaining. India has high saving rate, finally an image of confidence and competance.
With 40 percent of the budget on military, the rest for dbt repayment, no educational infrastructure and with its great image there is no hope for pakistan. Only way the pak military bidget can be reduced is through a peace deal with india. India should ignore pakistan, tell pakistan to continue with jihadic attacks, acquire sofisticated military equipment, integrate military production and weapons exports. Eventually there could a time when pakistan can contained by routime bombing raids as in palestine.
At last indians are accepting the fact that there can be no peace on jihadic frontier, it can only be acceptable kill ratios. With the return of taliban and alquida from afghanistan, the jihadisation of pakistan is expected to accelerate. Jihadic Republic of Pakistan has a ring to it.
#125 Posted by ferozk on March 3, 2003 12:56:07 am
To Pakistanis and Indians on Chowk:
Jinnah is dead. Gandhi is dead. Jinnah or Gandhi`s dream or vision or hopes or fears died with them. Both were men; politicans and whether they were good or bad, wise or foolish, brave or weak is a question not to be decided through personalized embitterness or rancour. Whether they made mistakes or not is a academic debate, which will never solve the problems facing Pakistan or India. Yes, they can be said to have contributed to the problems facing Pakistan and India, but that pales in comparsion to the question of how those problems are to addressed and solved.
They belong to history. The reality of partition is that it was a series of mistakes compounded by a lack of compromise on all sides. The problems of India will solved by Indians just like the problems of Pakistan will be solved by Pakistanis without blaming one another and I can assure you, the problems in both the nations will never be solved as long as we blame each other for our misfortunes and mistakes.
Both India and Pakistan, if they are to progress, have to move beyond the insecurities of parition and its aftermath and to accept the reality of their present, without seeking the impossible by making their future a mirror of what their past was once. Hate and finger pointing has to give way to tolerance and understanding and the arrogance of history, which justifies the hatred between the two nations, has to yeild to humility; humility based on the awareness that both India and Pakistan are flawed. Both India and Pakistan are flawed, because their leaders are flawed by the virtue of being human beings and not demi-gods of omniscience. Humility comes not only from accepting one`s own faults, but in tolerating the other person`s faults as well.
Does hate ever solve anything? Has placing the blame ever solved anything? If not, then why pursue an endeavor, which is so futile and without any merit?
Ciao
Jinnah is dead. Gandhi is dead. Jinnah or Gandhi`s dream or vision or hopes or fears died with them. Both were men; politicans and whether they were good or bad, wise or foolish, brave or weak is a question not to be decided through personalized embitterness or rancour. Whether they made mistakes or not is a academic debate, which will never solve the problems facing Pakistan or India. Yes, they can be said to have contributed to the problems facing Pakistan and India, but that pales in comparsion to the question of how those problems are to addressed and solved.
They belong to history. The reality of partition is that it was a series of mistakes compounded by a lack of compromise on all sides. The problems of India will solved by Indians just like the problems of Pakistan will be solved by Pakistanis without blaming one another and I can assure you, the problems in both the nations will never be solved as long as we blame each other for our misfortunes and mistakes.
Both India and Pakistan, if they are to progress, have to move beyond the insecurities of parition and its aftermath and to accept the reality of their present, without seeking the impossible by making their future a mirror of what their past was once. Hate and finger pointing has to give way to tolerance and understanding and the arrogance of history, which justifies the hatred between the two nations, has to yeild to humility; humility based on the awareness that both India and Pakistan are flawed. Both India and Pakistan are flawed, because their leaders are flawed by the virtue of being human beings and not demi-gods of omniscience. Humility comes not only from accepting one`s own faults, but in tolerating the other person`s faults as well.
Does hate ever solve anything? Has placing the blame ever solved anything? If not, then why pursue an endeavor, which is so futile and without any merit?
Ciao
#124 Posted by JohnGalt on March 3, 2003 12:56:07 am
#119 by sadna
Take my example. My mom spent all her growing up years in Delhi, Simla and Bhopal; my dad was born a Kanndiga, had his education in Hydarabad and came to Maharashtra for work. I was concived in Assam (I am told), was born in Bhopal, and have lived all my life (except for 2 years that I spent in Chennai working as IT soldier) in that bashon of `Marathi` ness - Pune. I am the walking example of National Integration :) The thing is, no matter where I am in India, I have never felt like an outsider. So much for India-will-break-up-into-4-5-nations-once-Kashmir-is-solved-theories.
Take my example. My mom spent all her growing up years in Delhi, Simla and Bhopal; my dad was born a Kanndiga, had his education in Hydarabad and came to Maharashtra for work. I was concived in Assam (I am told), was born in Bhopal, and have lived all my life (except for 2 years that I spent in Chennai working as IT soldier) in that bashon of `Marathi` ness - Pune. I am the walking example of National Integration :) The thing is, no matter where I am in India, I have never felt like an outsider. So much for India-will-break-up-into-4-5-nations-once-Kashmir-is-solved-theories.
#123 Posted by Tipu on March 2, 2003 9:30:51 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#122 Posted by Pankaj on March 2, 2003 6:46:14 pm
Sadna
India, IMO, is a civilization state. It transcends the nation states defined on the basis of language, religion or sects/castes. There is so much overlapping and intermixing at every level that it can not be but one country. The diversity is all too visible on the surface- diversity in language, dress, lifestyles etc. What is not readily observable is the similarity beneath the surface - similarity arising out of culture/traditions, no doubt shaped by four millenia of common history; and similarity in the thought patterns and the shared fundamental value sets, a by-product of the civilizational consciousness. The languages may be different across India but they tell the same tale. India is more closely knit than what many people including some indians think. I had a first hand experience of this fact when I visited Trichy, located in the extreme South, for my summer internship a few years back. Secondly, with the economic growth, the mobility of the labour market in India has grown tremendously. This intermixing of populations, driven by the economic factors, has further blurred the boundaries. In due course of time, the economic factors will promote a common metropolitan culture emerging in the multiple centers of India further increasing the interdependence of diverse peoples. Although India is well integrated as far as culture (civilization) is concerned, I believe it has to go a long way before it becomes a well integrated economic zone. That, IMO, will be the pinnacle of the civilization state of India.
India, IMO, is a civilization state. It transcends the nation states defined on the basis of language, religion or sects/castes. There is so much overlapping and intermixing at every level that it can not be but one country. The diversity is all too visible on the surface- diversity in language, dress, lifestyles etc. What is not readily observable is the similarity beneath the surface - similarity arising out of culture/traditions, no doubt shaped by four millenia of common history; and similarity in the thought patterns and the shared fundamental value sets, a by-product of the civilizational consciousness. The languages may be different across India but they tell the same tale. India is more closely knit than what many people including some indians think. I had a first hand experience of this fact when I visited Trichy, located in the extreme South, for my summer internship a few years back. Secondly, with the economic growth, the mobility of the labour market in India has grown tremendously. This intermixing of populations, driven by the economic factors, has further blurred the boundaries. In due course of time, the economic factors will promote a common metropolitan culture emerging in the multiple centers of India further increasing the interdependence of diverse peoples. Although India is well integrated as far as culture (civilization) is concerned, I believe it has to go a long way before it becomes a well integrated economic zone. That, IMO, will be the pinnacle of the civilization state of India.
#121 Posted by arjun_m on March 2, 2003 6:46:14 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#120 Posted by Ralph on March 2, 2003 5:36:32 pm
Every community should fight the ogre of communalism. For minorities there cannot be a better and safer system than secularism. However, for secularism to work all communities must adopt secularist attitudes. Christian missionaries who proselytize aggressively are as dangerous to secularism as Hindutva leaders. The same goes for Muslim leaders. If we confine our religion within our homes, the majority will also do the same. I have had no problems with Hindus although I know some enthusiastic missionaries who have been threatened. I have seen Hindus becoming more and more conscious of being had by others. I think that is a natural reaction for which we cant blame Hindus.
#119 Posted by sadna on March 2, 2003 4:05:56 pm
Pakistanis including SameerJB and Saima who talk of how ideally India should be many nations, I will like to ask you a personal question, tell me which of these nations should I go?
Let me explain I am Hindi speaking and my father is from Rajasthan but I have never lived in the Hindi-speaking areas of India(in fact neither did my mother, for most part). I was born and lived all my life in another state Kerala 2000 km away. If India is not one nation, please tell me, where do I belong? Is my(or any other Indian`s) identity supposed to be restricted to primarily the language I speak and the exact spot where my father was born? Or if I belong to the nation where I was born, are my parents to be foreigners, to be banished from where they have lived and worked for last many decades?
The other day I happened to meet a Malayalee who grew up in Mumbai, and we had a good laugh about how he had never lived in Kerala whereas I lived there most of my life, but he was the Malayalee speaking one and I was the Hindi speaking one. I have come across this situation many times, a Bengali colleague who grew up in Agra and married a Punjabi, a Kannada friend who grew up among peanut farmers in Gujarat, a Manipuri friend who has actually lived in Rastrapathi Bhavan as part of the President of India`s household(and at that time the President was a Tamilian).
I am not the only one, many of my friends and neighbours have parents from different regions or have themselves married people of other regions or religions or have moved out of `their` region and settled down elsewhere for work.
And its not only my generation. Almost 50 years ago when my father was leaving for studies abroad, in his hometown in Rajasthan, he paid farewell visits to a number of elders, including family friends who I now realise(being faced with this multiple nationhood issue on chowk) happened to be Malayalees. Tell me where do I belong and where do those Malayalees belong?
Our Army is integrated, our paramilitary forces are integrated, our central IPS cadre is integrated(for example you can find N.Indian police officials in S. India and vice versa) how do you propose it should be split?
Our bureacracy is integrated. One of my school classmates in Kerala was Sikh whose Sikh father was true blue Punjabi but his job was in the Kerala cadre and so he spoke better Malayalam than I who had grown up there. The other day I spotted my Malayalee school classmate on ZeeNews promoting tourism in Chattisgarh. He is a Indian Administrative Service officer in the Chattisgarh and is evidently assigned to the tourism department. I know from personal friends that he is married to a Punjabi or Hindi speaking N.Indian. A N.Indian family friend I grew up with in Kerala joined the Indian police service and ended up policing in W Bengal. If India is not one nation, but many nations which are better separate, tell me which nation should both these people go, where should they work? And I am just one Indian relating only PART of my experience with Indian diversity.
Perhaps Pakistanis donot comprehend the huge diversity of India, a diversity which has only grown since 1947. Dalits from N.India get together with Dalits of S.India on common issues. A Cong MP from Kerala is sent to sort out party issues in Maharashtra(for example) When terrorists kill sleeping laborers in Jammu, often its Bihari migrants who are killed. In the Gujarat riots, there were UP/Bihari Muslims also who were killed. In the TV news reportage of the Cauvery river dispute from Bangalore, one can see a Sikh (or two) accompanying the Karnataka CM. A Sikkimese woman was India`s Foreign secretary, a person from the Khasi tribal community in Meghalaya is presently India`s Chief Election Commissioner who made the decisions about elections in Gujarat and J&K.
In summary, our institutions are integrated to a large extent, our lives are integrated to a large extent, our national consciouness is integrated to a large extent, and face it, an Indian currency note has at least 11 languages on it. An Indian from a given region and their talents are not restricted to that region, he/she has the run of the entire country, its institutions and the scope the whole country offers.
The Indian challenge is NOT to repudiate all this and split this consciousness up and restrict people to their `own` regions `for their own best interests` as Pakistanis keep asserting, its to expand the national consciousness and expand the scope for achievement so that no group, or region or individual is left out.
The idea that Tamils cannot live with Kannadas and Keralites cannot live with Maharashtrians so all Kannadigas must leave the rest of India and go back to Karnataka and all Keralites must return to Kerala, that Punjabis in Tamil Nadu or Kolkatta must leave and go back to Punjab and all Maharashtrians in N Delhi must leave N. Delhi and go back to Maharashtra, etc and
that the borders must be drawn around areas which are to be ethnically or linguistically cleansed in Indians` `best interest`, sorry to say such an idea can only occur to someone either not adequately informed OR a determined enemy of modern Indians who wants to see India go through a thousand-fold magnified repeat of the dance of death in 1947.
Let me explain I am Hindi speaking and my father is from Rajasthan but I have never lived in the Hindi-speaking areas of India(in fact neither did my mother, for most part). I was born and lived all my life in another state Kerala 2000 km away. If India is not one nation, please tell me, where do I belong? Is my(or any other Indian`s) identity supposed to be restricted to primarily the language I speak and the exact spot where my father was born? Or if I belong to the nation where I was born, are my parents to be foreigners, to be banished from where they have lived and worked for last many decades?
The other day I happened to meet a Malayalee who grew up in Mumbai, and we had a good laugh about how he had never lived in Kerala whereas I lived there most of my life, but he was the Malayalee speaking one and I was the Hindi speaking one. I have come across this situation many times, a Bengali colleague who grew up in Agra and married a Punjabi, a Kannada friend who grew up among peanut farmers in Gujarat, a Manipuri friend who has actually lived in Rastrapathi Bhavan as part of the President of India`s household(and at that time the President was a Tamilian).
I am not the only one, many of my friends and neighbours have parents from different regions or have themselves married people of other regions or religions or have moved out of `their` region and settled down elsewhere for work.
And its not only my generation. Almost 50 years ago when my father was leaving for studies abroad, in his hometown in Rajasthan, he paid farewell visits to a number of elders, including family friends who I now realise(being faced with this multiple nationhood issue on chowk) happened to be Malayalees. Tell me where do I belong and where do those Malayalees belong?
Our Army is integrated, our paramilitary forces are integrated, our central IPS cadre is integrated(for example you can find N.Indian police officials in S. India and vice versa) how do you propose it should be split?
Our bureacracy is integrated. One of my school classmates in Kerala was Sikh whose Sikh father was true blue Punjabi but his job was in the Kerala cadre and so he spoke better Malayalam than I who had grown up there. The other day I spotted my Malayalee school classmate on ZeeNews promoting tourism in Chattisgarh. He is a Indian Administrative Service officer in the Chattisgarh and is evidently assigned to the tourism department. I know from personal friends that he is married to a Punjabi or Hindi speaking N.Indian. A N.Indian family friend I grew up with in Kerala joined the Indian police service and ended up policing in W Bengal. If India is not one nation, but many nations which are better separate, tell me which nation should both these people go, where should they work? And I am just one Indian relating only PART of my experience with Indian diversity.
Perhaps Pakistanis donot comprehend the huge diversity of India, a diversity which has only grown since 1947. Dalits from N.India get together with Dalits of S.India on common issues. A Cong MP from Kerala is sent to sort out party issues in Maharashtra(for example) When terrorists kill sleeping laborers in Jammu, often its Bihari migrants who are killed. In the Gujarat riots, there were UP/Bihari Muslims also who were killed. In the TV news reportage of the Cauvery river dispute from Bangalore, one can see a Sikh (or two) accompanying the Karnataka CM. A Sikkimese woman was India`s Foreign secretary, a person from the Khasi tribal community in Meghalaya is presently India`s Chief Election Commissioner who made the decisions about elections in Gujarat and J&K.
In summary, our institutions are integrated to a large extent, our lives are integrated to a large extent, our national consciouness is integrated to a large extent, and face it, an Indian currency note has at least 11 languages on it. An Indian from a given region and their talents are not restricted to that region, he/she has the run of the entire country, its institutions and the scope the whole country offers.
The Indian challenge is NOT to repudiate all this and split this consciousness up and restrict people to their `own` regions `for their own best interests` as Pakistanis keep asserting, its to expand the national consciousness and expand the scope for achievement so that no group, or region or individual is left out.
The idea that Tamils cannot live with Kannadas and Keralites cannot live with Maharashtrians so all Kannadigas must leave the rest of India and go back to Karnataka and all Keralites must return to Kerala, that Punjabis in Tamil Nadu or Kolkatta must leave and go back to Punjab and all Maharashtrians in N Delhi must leave N. Delhi and go back to Maharashtra, etc and
that the borders must be drawn around areas which are to be ethnically or linguistically cleansed in Indians` `best interest`, sorry to say such an idea can only occur to someone either not adequately informed OR a determined enemy of modern Indians who wants to see India go through a thousand-fold magnified repeat of the dance of death in 1947.
#118 Posted by FJ on March 2, 2003 11:52:41 am
quick comments: very interesting article. naive hope, ultra simplistic projection of theories.
``consociational model of democracy`` in effect divides nation into parts with unique governance?
sameer #12 very callous attitude my man. Taking away identity is not the solution.
Rajiv Gandhi two-facedness well brought out.
``consociational model of democracy`` in effect divides nation into parts with unique governance?
sameer #12 very callous attitude my man. Taking away identity is not the solution.
Rajiv Gandhi two-facedness well brought out.
#117 Posted by pmishra2 on March 2, 2003 11:52:41 am
#105 ylh2 (not much change here)
Have your or have you not publically proclaimed (on Chowk) your descent from arabs either connected to Mohammed or part of his slawe/servant retinue? Please answer YES or NO.
I will personally find your message in which you proclaimed your august descent and post to this list. It is clear that you are now passing from sophistry to plain lying, and the world needs to understand the mindset of individuals such as yourself.
As for your silly propaganda that indians consider people like Khushwant Singh traitors, consider the following facts: Mr. Singh is a regular columnist in about a dozen leading indian papers, his views are often quoted and discussed on a weekly basis in dozens of other magazines and papers.
Only an ideologue with vested interests would try to characterize Khushwant Singh as outside the indian mainstream. Some of us are also old enough to remember the khalistani insurgency and KHushwants denounciation of a Sikh theocratic state. For this his home was sandbagged against bombs and he had four armed guards for 10 years !! So lets not waste time on silly arguments about his grand-dad or grand-uncle or whatever.
Have your or have you not publically proclaimed (on Chowk) your descent from arabs either connected to Mohammed or part of his slawe/servant retinue? Please answer YES or NO.
I will personally find your message in which you proclaimed your august descent and post to this list. It is clear that you are now passing from sophistry to plain lying, and the world needs to understand the mindset of individuals such as yourself.
As for your silly propaganda that indians consider people like Khushwant Singh traitors, consider the following facts: Mr. Singh is a regular columnist in about a dozen leading indian papers, his views are often quoted and discussed on a weekly basis in dozens of other magazines and papers.
Only an ideologue with vested interests would try to characterize Khushwant Singh as outside the indian mainstream. Some of us are also old enough to remember the khalistani insurgency and KHushwants denounciation of a Sikh theocratic state. For this his home was sandbagged against bombs and he had four armed guards for 10 years !! So lets not waste time on silly arguments about his grand-dad or grand-uncle or whatever.
#116 Posted by sadna on March 2, 2003 9:42:38 am
sadna #111
I realised many maynot be able to read the script in that photo. It said `Sun le beta Pakistan, Baap hai tera Hindustan` :).
I realised many maynot be able to read the script in that photo. It said `Sun le beta Pakistan, Baap hai tera Hindustan` :).
#115 Posted by veeresh on March 2, 2003 9:42:38 am
Yasser # 113, please be absolutely assured, that ``categorisation`` of Khushwant Singh`s status in India has nothing to do with his sentiments towards Pakistan. It is simply that if you as a Pakistani wish us as Indians well, then you would kindly take the trouble to secure a holistic view on Mr. Khushwant Singh`s attributes before making statements like Long Live KS India.
Thank you, it is always a pleasure debating with you.
BTW, did anybody see the Aaj Tak/Musharaf interview earlier today?
Thank you, it is always a pleasure debating with you.
BTW, did anybody see the Aaj Tak/Musharaf interview earlier today?
#114 Posted by YLH2 on March 2, 2003 8:18:53 am
Jay and the Pakistan India Cricket Match,
According to Jay Cricket mirrors political realities (all of a sudden after Pakistan`s loss)... perhaps he will tell us what political reality is mirrored by the fact that Pakistan has won more than 60 games against India while India has won close to 30?
POLITICS/RELIGION and SPORT DON`T MIX you freakoid and there is a good reason for it. What happened was Sachin Tendulkar... that little master is a gem of a player, a genius at this sport... instead of thanking providence for him, freaks like Jay are busy establishing their idiotic notions of Indian racial superiority.
It was a pleasure watching Tendulkar bat, especially the cut for six against the over rated and loud mouth Shoaib... serves him right... Gharoor ka sar neecha... shoaib was going on and on about he is going to crush Tendulkar and the little master taught him a lesson. Perhaps a word also needs to be said for the excessive booing of Waqar Younis.. Magnanimity in victory sadly is a rare virtue... even for the little master.
Sameerjb`s posts numerous:
One thing I don`t understand how you are associating Chaudhry brothers
with the Pakistan movement.. if I understand correctly their father was sub-inspector ... it is only in the 1980s that they actively joined the new muslim league reinvented by the martial law regime and it is only recently that they have gotten to the position of ascendancy.
From a point of view of a Pakistani concerned about the intellectual cultural and social well being of Pakistan, I must there is much we can imbibe from the critical onslaught of Sameerjb that is if we can look past emotional extreme leftist ramblings (peoples` history vs elitist history, gandh-jinnah-nehru presided over killings etc) ...
These are the questions I wish to ask our Government:
1) Why have we abandoned the tradition gurmukhi and dev nagri script?
2) Why don`t we teach Hindi atleast on University level? I find that an average urdu reader in Pakistan is totally oblivious of some of the better works in Hindi literature... Munshi Prem Chand is a perfect bridge.. why isn`t enough attention paid to him?
3) Why isn`t gujurati taught in Karachi which has a large Gujurati speaking population (remember Jinnah was also gujurati speaking) ?
4) Why isn`t Punjabi taught in schools in Punjab and why isn`t the oath of office in Punjab administered in Punjabi?
I was amazed to find that Jinnah`s tomb the inscriptions are in gujurati in the traditional gujurati script... hence one can deduce that when the mausoleum was complete, this sad attitude had not yet crept into our mentality... one of the stated purposes of Pakistan as per the 1930 address of Iqbal was to save South Asian Islam from the stamp of Arab Imperialism and Jinnah himself had to intervene to block attempts by Agha Khan 3 and some Bengali leaguers asking to make Arabic the national language of Pakistan.
So how do we go about changing this trend of Arabicization that set in 2 decades ago, and how do we move towards more decentralization and greater provincial autonomy so that various ethnic nations don`t feel choked? Any thoughts Sameer? Or do you just criticize to win brownie points with the Indians?
-YLH
#113 Posted by YLH2 on March 2, 2003 8:18:53 am
PS One thing I am particularly worried about is the characterization of Khushwant Singh as a `white supremacist` and `colonialist by Veeresh Malik :
1) It has no logic to it
2) will any Indian who is friendly to Pakistan be caricatured in these unflattering phrases? and if yes why?
-YLH
1) It has no logic to it
2) will any Indian who is friendly to Pakistan be caricatured in these unflattering phrases? and if yes why?
-YLH
#112 Posted by YLH2 on March 2, 2003 8:18:53 am
Amit 98,
That is a comprehensive vision for the future of Pakistan and India... I wholeheartedly reciprocate your views and sentiments...
This caught my attention :
``6. Teach a balanced history in both countries ``
I have made this proposal many times on this side ... (Whatever happened to Daudpota`s attempt)... Perhaps K K Aziz on the Pakistani side would be a good candidate .. also Mubarik Ali.. What do you think?
``4. Hammer out a reasonable solution on Kashmir. Given that Kashmiris have their own government and they control the land, surely we can work out some compromise, where everyone in India and Pakistan have equal access to Kashmir for tourism, pilgrimage etc``
Agreed once again! The land grabbing antics are useless.... with an Independent and peaceful Kashmir we will effectively bury the threat of nuclear war...
You are welcomed anytime in my house in Lahore...
-YLH
That is a comprehensive vision for the future of Pakistan and India... I wholeheartedly reciprocate your views and sentiments...
This caught my attention :
``6. Teach a balanced history in both countries ``
I have made this proposal many times on this side ... (Whatever happened to Daudpota`s attempt)... Perhaps K K Aziz on the Pakistani side would be a good candidate .. also Mubarik Ali.. What do you think?
``4. Hammer out a reasonable solution on Kashmir. Given that Kashmiris have their own government and they control the land, surely we can work out some compromise, where everyone in India and Pakistan have equal access to Kashmir for tourism, pilgrimage etc``
Agreed once again! The land grabbing antics are useless.... with an Independent and peaceful Kashmir we will effectively bury the threat of nuclear war...
You are welcomed anytime in my house in Lahore...
-YLH
#111 Posted by tahmed32 on March 2, 2003 8:18:52 am
Announcing and Anti-Dote to TNT: The OPC (One Person Corollory): Ladies and Gentlemen, in one more attempt to put an end to the constant mumblings about TNT by Jay from his ``pink padded cell`` (per hamidm. (But why pink incidentally? Is Jay Gay in addition to being an obssessive, compulsive, thakerayesque modiite??)), I present to you the (drum-roll please)....the OPC.
The OPC follows from the following quote from Rousseau: ``Man was born free, yet everywhere he is in chains.``
The corollary: In order to be free, we must break these chains. In order to break these chains we must understand the nature of these chains. These chains are that say ``you are part of this nation, this community``. Break them, and there is only one nation left - the nation of mankind and other living creatures on earth. Pakistan is not a nation, the Indian subcontinent is not a nation. All of mankind is one nation. Increasingly this seemingly ideal notion is becoming an everyday reality.
Thank you for reading my profound thoughts for the day. :-)
The OPC follows from the following quote from Rousseau: ``Man was born free, yet everywhere he is in chains.``
The corollary: In order to be free, we must break these chains. In order to break these chains we must understand the nature of these chains. These chains are that say ``you are part of this nation, this community``. Break them, and there is only one nation left - the nation of mankind and other living creatures on earth. Pakistan is not a nation, the Indian subcontinent is not a nation. All of mankind is one nation. Increasingly this seemingly ideal notion is becoming an everyday reality.
Thank you for reading my profound thoughts for the day. :-)
#110 Posted by rsridhar on March 2, 2003 8:18:52 am
#106 by jayjay
A good analysis. I have always felt that hindu militancy will not have any takers the day muslims forge a close alliance with hindus. This does not mean giving away one`s religious identity and belief. They just need to shy away from people who speak of Islam in a confrontational way. It is heartening to note that BJP lost in Himachal Pradesh. Modi`s hindutva ideology is a dangerous concept. It should not be allowed to succeed.
Sridhar
A good analysis. I have always felt that hindu militancy will not have any takers the day muslims forge a close alliance with hindus. This does not mean giving away one`s religious identity and belief. They just need to shy away from people who speak of Islam in a confrontational way. It is heartening to note that BJP lost in Himachal Pradesh. Modi`s hindutva ideology is a dangerous concept. It should not be allowed to succeed.
Sridhar
#109 Posted by harimau on March 2, 2003 8:18:52 am
Ref jayjay #106
While what you say about Indian Muslims might be true of SOME of the Muslim leadership, I am afraid that you are painting with a broad brush all Indian Muslims as villains. A vast majority (in excess of, I would venture, 99%) are peaceable, law-abiding citizens; the rich leading a luxurious life, the middle-class managing to survive and the poor barely ekeing out a livelihood. Just like their Hindu or Christian neighbors. Don`t blame them for the minuscule minority that might have bought into Wahabi fundamentalism and consider India dar-ul-harb.
Your comments about changing in the thinking of Indian Muslims (towards modernity, scientific education while retaining their culture, identity and religious piety) having a positive influence on Pakistan is right on.
While what you say about Indian Muslims might be true of SOME of the Muslim leadership, I am afraid that you are painting with a broad brush all Indian Muslims as villains. A vast majority (in excess of, I would venture, 99%) are peaceable, law-abiding citizens; the rich leading a luxurious life, the middle-class managing to survive and the poor barely ekeing out a livelihood. Just like their Hindu or Christian neighbors. Don`t blame them for the minuscule minority that might have bought into Wahabi fundamentalism and consider India dar-ul-harb.
Your comments about changing in the thinking of Indian Muslims (towards modernity, scientific education while retaining their culture, identity and religious piety) having a positive influence on Pakistan is right on.
#108 Posted by sadna on March 2, 2003 8:18:52 am
Piscatiqua #104
You bet Indian Muslims are in the mainstream, check this out :) :
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=298427
BUT but, if you look at the polio incidence cases(India accounts for a majority of the cases in the world), inspite of the repeated highly publicised Pulse Polio campaigns, the highest number of instances seem to occur in Indian Muslim pockets in UP and other places. The primary reason for uneducated Muslim parents not to bring their children to be inoculated seems to be distrust of the perceived `Hindu`-intentions of the state.
You bet Indian Muslims are in the mainstream, check this out :) :
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=298427
BUT but, if you look at the polio incidence cases(India accounts for a majority of the cases in the world), inspite of the repeated highly publicised Pulse Polio campaigns, the highest number of instances seem to occur in Indian Muslim pockets in UP and other places. The primary reason for uneducated Muslim parents not to bring their children to be inoculated seems to be distrust of the perceived `Hindu`-intentions of the state.
#107 Posted by jay on March 2, 2003 12:53:58 am
NOT BY JAY
``They kill at home for their own salvation, and in quest of martyrdom when they go out to fight the infidels in foreign lands. Mercenaries also join in to inflate their ranks. These are the two faces of the same doctrine - the two sides of the same coin. The troublesome heretics at home deserve the same fate as the oppressing non-believers elsewhere.
The problem thus has to be tackled where it arises and not when it culminates in bloodshed. Trying to catch and punish the culprits has long been a futile exercise and will increasingly so remain. Commenting editorially on the Alfalah massacre, Dawn disclosed that 200 people were killed in 194 incidents in Karachi alone but only four were convicted over ten years. The countrywide picture would be grimmer.
The dogma which leads to intolerance of dissent is nurtured in mosques and madrassahs and later given a violent twist in public life in pursuit of political ends. The attempts by the government and civil society to make the mosques and madrassahs centres of learning and tolerance have been half-hearted and unsuccessful. Bigotry has mushroomed as have such institutions` numbers.
The latest and most elaborate of the plans to change the environs of the madrassahs from parochial to liberal was announced by President Musharraf with great gusto when he was at the height of his power. He undertook to broaden the base of their education by adding to their syllabi the subjects secular and scientific. Scared by the resistance the move encountered, he scaled the plan down to mere registration. Even that did not happen. His relentless zeal which disfigured the country`s political and administrative scene withered when confronted by the clerics, as had his first ambition to reverse the tide of obscurantism and make Pakistan into another Turkey.
Changing his strategy, Musharraf then gratefully acknowledged the service the 8,000 odd madrassahs rendered to the community by imparting lessons and providing lodgings free of cost to half a million poor children and promised to provide computers and other modern teaching aids to them. There is little possibility of that coming about when many of the government`s own schools do not have even blackboards and jute mats for the squatting students.
Musharraf`s plan to cleanse society of illicit weapons floundered as had his madrassah reforms. The weapons recovered, mostly given up voluntarily, were few and old, not worthy even of publicity stunts. Last to surrender would have been the militants.
Religious fanatics, armed with unlicensed weapons and cruising in stolen or smuggled vehicles, thus continue to strike at will at any of the numerous places that the dissenting ones frequent at all hours. The police, as organized at present, are unable to stop them from attacking or catch them while fleeing. They operate with impunity. ``
///HAMIDM, I have company in the cell, above is from dawn of today, written by a pakistani. It cinfirms my view that per the book, even domestic killing is OK for heaven.
``They kill at home for their own salvation, and in quest of martyrdom when they go out to fight the infidels in foreign lands. Mercenaries also join in to inflate their ranks. These are the two faces of the same doctrine - the two sides of the same coin. The troublesome heretics at home deserve the same fate as the oppressing non-believers elsewhere.
The problem thus has to be tackled where it arises and not when it culminates in bloodshed. Trying to catch and punish the culprits has long been a futile exercise and will increasingly so remain. Commenting editorially on the Alfalah massacre, Dawn disclosed that 200 people were killed in 194 incidents in Karachi alone but only four were convicted over ten years. The countrywide picture would be grimmer.
The dogma which leads to intolerance of dissent is nurtured in mosques and madrassahs and later given a violent twist in public life in pursuit of political ends. The attempts by the government and civil society to make the mosques and madrassahs centres of learning and tolerance have been half-hearted and unsuccessful. Bigotry has mushroomed as have such institutions` numbers.
The latest and most elaborate of the plans to change the environs of the madrassahs from parochial to liberal was announced by President Musharraf with great gusto when he was at the height of his power. He undertook to broaden the base of their education by adding to their syllabi the subjects secular and scientific. Scared by the resistance the move encountered, he scaled the plan down to mere registration. Even that did not happen. His relentless zeal which disfigured the country`s political and administrative scene withered when confronted by the clerics, as had his first ambition to reverse the tide of obscurantism and make Pakistan into another Turkey.
Changing his strategy, Musharraf then gratefully acknowledged the service the 8,000 odd madrassahs rendered to the community by imparting lessons and providing lodgings free of cost to half a million poor children and promised to provide computers and other modern teaching aids to them. There is little possibility of that coming about when many of the government`s own schools do not have even blackboards and jute mats for the squatting students.
Musharraf`s plan to cleanse society of illicit weapons floundered as had his madrassah reforms. The weapons recovered, mostly given up voluntarily, were few and old, not worthy even of publicity stunts. Last to surrender would have been the militants.
Religious fanatics, armed with unlicensed weapons and cruising in stolen or smuggled vehicles, thus continue to strike at will at any of the numerous places that the dissenting ones frequent at all hours. The police, as organized at present, are unable to stop them from attacking or catch them while fleeing. They operate with impunity. ``
///HAMIDM, I have company in the cell, above is from dawn of today, written by a pakistani. It cinfirms my view that per the book, even domestic killing is OK for heaven.
#106 Posted by JayJay on March 2, 2003 12:51:48 am
Being a Punjabi-Paki myself, I know well that the communal politics (read Muslim League and its Two-Nation Theory) of the British India had its genesis in the chattering classes of the Muslims of UP and CP. ML’s top and middle leadership came from the so-called “culturally-and-linguistically superior” Muslim elite of Urdu-Hindi-Hindustani speaking areas. However, the Muslim majority areas of India on the other hand could not reconcile themselves to the TNT until they were left with no choice. The Muslims of North-Western and North-Eastern India did not actively support the creation of Pakistan until the political atmosphere became so polarized that they could not disassociate themselves from the flow of the political developments.
I find it amazing that these proponents of the communal political (TNT) quickly changed their political colours after the vivisection of the Subcontinent. These communalists became the biggest advocates of secularism. They promptly sheltered themselves under the umbrella of the Congress Party (the target of their hate before the Partition) and have still been hiding there, bar a couple of brief affairs with Desai, VP Singh, Shekhar-led secular collations. How long would they be able to conceal their real self? Their secularism is only façade for the public consumptions. These Indian Muslims are closet religious fanatics. Otherwise, India would not have separate personal/family laws for these so-called secularists. The Muslims of India are nothing but walking and thinking (?) 110 million “Pakistans” (repeat PAKISTANS) tarnishing the image of the secular-minded India. You cannot eat your cake and have it too.
The rising Hindu nationalism is nothing but a reaction to the long-tolerated hypocrisy of Indian Muslims. It is not too late if they stop looking towards west and try to assimilate within the larger Indian society. An attitudinal change in the thinking of the Indian Muslims might also help us, Pakistanis, to re-evolve our national and cultural identity with reason and rationality.
I find it amazing that these proponents of the communal political (TNT) quickly changed their political colours after the vivisection of the Subcontinent. These communalists became the biggest advocates of secularism. They promptly sheltered themselves under the umbrella of the Congress Party (the target of their hate before the Partition) and have still been hiding there, bar a couple of brief affairs with Desai, VP Singh, Shekhar-led secular collations. How long would they be able to conceal their real self? Their secularism is only façade for the public consumptions. These Indian Muslims are closet religious fanatics. Otherwise, India would not have separate personal/family laws for these so-called secularists. The Muslims of India are nothing but walking and thinking (?) 110 million “Pakistans” (repeat PAKISTANS) tarnishing the image of the secular-minded India. You cannot eat your cake and have it too.
The rising Hindu nationalism is nothing but a reaction to the long-tolerated hypocrisy of Indian Muslims. It is not too late if they stop looking towards west and try to assimilate within the larger Indian society. An attitudinal change in the thinking of the Indian Muslims might also help us, Pakistanis, to re-evolve our national and cultural identity with reason and rationality.
#105 Posted by YLH2 on March 1, 2003 11:56:56 pm
Dear Chowkwallahs,
I had absolutely no interest in starting a debate on Jinnah nor did I start one... I am only giving an alternative view to the one given by P-Mishra in #21. I am no believer in ideologies one nation or two nation or whatever... I believe only in Democracy, peace, stability and Good Economics.... In my own view South Asia should break up even further into smaller Republics, but I shudder to think what upheavel that would create.
The way P-Mishra addresses me is indicative of his lack of self respect, not to mention his coverup of the fact that he can`t really come up with a scholarly response... but Clearly P-Mishra knows something the historians didn`t know for he is adamant on proving something that can`t be proved atleast by facts of History... P-Mishra knows something the First Indian constituent Assembly didn`t know because in 1948 that body in which were present men like Nehru, Azad and Patel, passed a resolution paying homage to the life and times of Quaid e Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah...
And he definitely knows something more than Sarat Chanderbose, brother of Netaji and pres of the forward bloc of the Congress who said: ``Mr.Jinnah was great as a lawyer, once great as a Congressman, great as a Leader of Muslims, great as a world politician and diplomat, and greatest as of all as a man of action. By Mr. Jinnah`s passing away, the world has lost one of the greatest statesmen and Pakistan its life-giver, philosopher and guide.``
Too bad Mr.Bose (and pioneering members of the Indian Parliament) didn`t have the clarity of vision that P-Mishra has exhibited when he(P-Mishra) claims that ``history will always link the murders of direct action day with him``... yes indeed History written by psychopaths of Mr.Mishra`s persuasion will always link them together.. How reliable that might be I don`t know... for after all Mr.Mishra has accused me in the past of being sectarianist for taking pride in the success of Rana Bhagwandas a fellow Pakistani on the Supreme Court Bench. Nothing exemplifies Mr.Mishra`s skewness more.
And what of simple metaphors... for Jinnah even the chaos of civil disobedience was abhorrable, so when he finally forged a pistol he was referring to the Gandhi style civil disobedience that ML would now take up... Gandhi referred to his self as the general and his followers as troops.. can one then argue that he too wanted to wage wars?
Rsaxena mentions the wonderful and heartwarming gesture b/w our two cricket teams... too bad he couldn`t take a leaf out of their book... for nothing could stop him from taking personal pot shot in #72.. ah well that is typical ... .
And its always some excuse for Veeresh... if you mention a western Author, he is always on Pakistani payroll, if you mention someone like Arundhati Roy she is just an anti-national communist, and now Khushwant Singh has joined this list... he is a white supremecist, terrorist, Islamic fanatic and an anti-national communist all in one... It seems that these names are reserved for any Indian who doesn`t harbor some anti-Pakistan feelings as Veeresh.
Sameerjb,
I almost completely agree with you (except on the counts of Nehru-Gandhi-Jinnah) ... your idea is not a new one ofcourse... Sir Fazle Hussain, Sikandar Hayat and others believed in this idea... and it found enough expression in Jinnah`s 14 points...
Subcontinent`s unity lay in the diversity of its peoples and that is where both Indian Nationalism and Muslim Nationalism went against the grain of the people... these two ideas were exploded in stages... hence 1947 was stage 1 and 1971 was stage 2... if Pakistan wants to avoid stage three it has to become more federal and less centralized... more liberal and less ideological.
-YLH
I had absolutely no interest in starting a debate on Jinnah nor did I start one... I am only giving an alternative view to the one given by P-Mishra in #21. I am no believer in ideologies one nation or two nation or whatever... I believe only in Democracy, peace, stability and Good Economics.... In my own view South Asia should break up even further into smaller Republics, but I shudder to think what upheavel that would create.
The way P-Mishra addresses me is indicative of his lack of self respect, not to mention his coverup of the fact that he can`t really come up with a scholarly response... but Clearly P-Mishra knows something the historians didn`t know for he is adamant on proving something that can`t be proved atleast by facts of History... P-Mishra knows something the First Indian constituent Assembly didn`t know because in 1948 that body in which were present men like Nehru, Azad and Patel, passed a resolution paying homage to the life and times of Quaid e Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah...
And he definitely knows something more than Sarat Chanderbose, brother of Netaji and pres of the forward bloc of the Congress who said: ``Mr.Jinnah was great as a lawyer, once great as a Congressman, great as a Leader of Muslims, great as a world politician and diplomat, and greatest as of all as a man of action. By Mr. Jinnah`s passing away, the world has lost one of the greatest statesmen and Pakistan its life-giver, philosopher and guide.``
Too bad Mr.Bose (and pioneering members of the Indian Parliament) didn`t have the clarity of vision that P-Mishra has exhibited when he(P-Mishra) claims that ``history will always link the murders of direct action day with him``... yes indeed History written by psychopaths of Mr.Mishra`s persuasion will always link them together.. How reliable that might be I don`t know... for after all Mr.Mishra has accused me in the past of being sectarianist for taking pride in the success of Rana Bhagwandas a fellow Pakistani on the Supreme Court Bench. Nothing exemplifies Mr.Mishra`s skewness more.
And what of simple metaphors... for Jinnah even the chaos of civil disobedience was abhorrable, so when he finally forged a pistol he was referring to the Gandhi style civil disobedience that ML would now take up... Gandhi referred to his self as the general and his followers as troops.. can one then argue that he too wanted to wage wars?
Rsaxena mentions the wonderful and heartwarming gesture b/w our two cricket teams... too bad he couldn`t take a leaf out of their book... for nothing could stop him from taking personal pot shot in #72.. ah well that is typical ... .
And its always some excuse for Veeresh... if you mention a western Author, he is always on Pakistani payroll, if you mention someone like Arundhati Roy she is just an anti-national communist, and now Khushwant Singh has joined this list... he is a white supremecist, terrorist, Islamic fanatic and an anti-national communist all in one... It seems that these names are reserved for any Indian who doesn`t harbor some anti-Pakistan feelings as Veeresh.
Sameerjb,
I almost completely agree with you (except on the counts of Nehru-Gandhi-Jinnah) ... your idea is not a new one ofcourse... Sir Fazle Hussain, Sikandar Hayat and others believed in this idea... and it found enough expression in Jinnah`s 14 points...
Subcontinent`s unity lay in the diversity of its peoples and that is where both Indian Nationalism and Muslim Nationalism went against the grain of the people... these two ideas were exploded in stages... hence 1947 was stage 1 and 1971 was stage 2... if Pakistan wants to avoid stage three it has to become more federal and less centralized... more liberal and less ideological.
-YLH
#104 Posted by Piscatiqua on March 1, 2003 10:34:40 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#103 Posted by hamidm2 on March 1, 2003 10:33:19 pm
............ jay, if you are not careful they will come and lock you up in a pink padded cell with your soul mate from our corner of hell - urstruly ....... get a grip on yourself - have some idlee or coconut curry....... better yet, have some taudi - they tell me it is the only good thing that ever came out of india ...........
#102 Posted by SameerJB on March 1, 2003 10:33:19 pm
amit #98: You are right. What have we achieved in the last 56 years except poverty, injustice and hate by staying in the mode of independence movement. Kashmir is a non-issue except for the spillover from independence movement.
The ogre let loose by the independence movement is alive, well and kicking. How can we blame anybody or Gujratis when supposedly educated people behave like jerks and displaying tunnel vision, when it comes to pissing matches? Thes topics, as hamidm stated, should have been buried long time ago. They belonged to another time and proven to be both dangerous and useless ideals in modern times.
The dynamics of the ideals in the absence of checks and balances and rule of law took undesired turns, which should have been known to the parties and their leaders who created an atmosphere of unrealistic and irrational dimensions of their ambitions turned ideals. They were political leaders like any other politicians, perhaps slightly better in few aspects.
Like seers, their sayings have become more important than deeds. Hrdly any day goes by when nobody mentions about a speech in Pakistan Legislative assembly in 1947 or Pakistan resolution of 1940.
The big casualty at chowk of this tunnel vision and hate is disappearance of ladies participarion. Out of 101 posts, only sadna participated actively and scout showed her anger for the never ending crap in the name of Gandhi-Jinnah-Nehru and Islam-Hinduism. I have come up with a simple formula to judge the importance of any topic at chowk. If it turns off desi ladies, then it is horse puckey. It is not worth wasting time in reading or writing.
Everybody should look at the list of interactors and count number of posts by female participants and then look in the mirror. Hopefully they will be ashamed of themselves.
Ladies used to participate actively and still do on meaningful topics. Same goes for the institutions and other activities in subcontinent. If women are outside religion heirarchy, clergy, jihad, madrassahs, sangh parivar, fundamentalism, bureaucracy, politics, military, intellectuals, white collar workers or labor force of any kind, then those areas are representative of male chauvinism or horse puckey. The independence movement was totally a male chauvinistic affair.
Yes, we need a totally new progressive and secular vision that is in the service of people before serving countries, nations, politicians, military,............
The ogre let loose by the independence movement is alive, well and kicking. How can we blame anybody or Gujratis when supposedly educated people behave like jerks and displaying tunnel vision, when it comes to pissing matches? Thes topics, as hamidm stated, should have been buried long time ago. They belonged to another time and proven to be both dangerous and useless ideals in modern times.
The dynamics of the ideals in the absence of checks and balances and rule of law took undesired turns, which should have been known to the parties and their leaders who created an atmosphere of unrealistic and irrational dimensions of their ambitions turned ideals. They were political leaders like any other politicians, perhaps slightly better in few aspects.
Like seers, their sayings have become more important than deeds. Hrdly any day goes by when nobody mentions about a speech in Pakistan Legislative assembly in 1947 or Pakistan resolution of 1940.
The big casualty at chowk of this tunnel vision and hate is disappearance of ladies participarion. Out of 101 posts, only sadna participated actively and scout showed her anger for the never ending crap in the name of Gandhi-Jinnah-Nehru and Islam-Hinduism. I have come up with a simple formula to judge the importance of any topic at chowk. If it turns off desi ladies, then it is horse puckey. It is not worth wasting time in reading or writing.
Everybody should look at the list of interactors and count number of posts by female participants and then look in the mirror. Hopefully they will be ashamed of themselves.
Ladies used to participate actively and still do on meaningful topics. Same goes for the institutions and other activities in subcontinent. If women are outside religion heirarchy, clergy, jihad, madrassahs, sangh parivar, fundamentalism, bureaucracy, politics, military, intellectuals, white collar workers or labor force of any kind, then those areas are representative of male chauvinism or horse puckey. The independence movement was totally a male chauvinistic affair.
Yes, we need a totally new progressive and secular vision that is in the service of people before serving countries, nations, politicians, military,............
#101 Posted by rsaxena on March 1, 2003 5:22:28 pm
...how ironic that a$$holes in gujarat are having street fights again while the indian team that won today has hindus, muslims and sikhs playing...
#100 Posted by jay on March 1, 2003 5:22:27 pm
IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY,
Those who wants to forget are the ones waiting for the history to repeat itself. It is the awareness and rejection of nazi history that is guiding germany. Imagine a scenario where the pak view of history is changed, TNT is treated at par with nazism and the man behind it is given the same olace in history as that man with funny mush, it would have been a different pakistan.
Every legislative change in pakistan is consistant with that world view emerging from the founding theory of pakistan. Why no one talks about what every pakistani has to sign and declare before getting a passport. Pl spare me the evils of zia line, since zia there had been three so called secular governments in pakistan, and several dictators, mushy who has changed the constitutuion so funadamentally cannot dare to change the attacks on other religions and the reason is simple, the people of pakistan believe in the founding ideoligy of pakistan, TNT.
It is time that the pakistanis accept the role of history, and those who wants to avaoind talk of history are only supporters of the jihadic turn of pakistan.
Those who wants to forget are the ones waiting for the history to repeat itself. It is the awareness and rejection of nazi history that is guiding germany. Imagine a scenario where the pak view of history is changed, TNT is treated at par with nazism and the man behind it is given the same olace in history as that man with funny mush, it would have been a different pakistan.
Every legislative change in pakistan is consistant with that world view emerging from the founding theory of pakistan. Why no one talks about what every pakistani has to sign and declare before getting a passport. Pl spare me the evils of zia line, since zia there had been three so called secular governments in pakistan, and several dictators, mushy who has changed the constitutuion so funadamentally cannot dare to change the attacks on other religions and the reason is simple, the people of pakistan believe in the founding ideoligy of pakistan, TNT.
It is time that the pakistanis accept the role of history, and those who wants to avaoind talk of history are only supporters of the jihadic turn of pakistan.
#99 Posted by jay on March 1, 2003 5:22:27 pm
NON MALIGNED NEWS,
The news of terrorist attacks on the US consulate in karachi when mushy finished the meeting of non-aligned nations where he expounded the concept of root cause. The following are thestatements issued by the pak delegation.
Mushy- `` there are US troops in pakistan, they are occupying several air bases. Recently a pakistani was taken to the uS and killed. Seceral of afghan and yemeni honoured guests to pakistan have ended up in gundanamo bay. FBI is operating freely in pakistan. Pak people are strugleing for freedom, to everthrow the occupation forces. I have to dig deep to find the roots of the attack in karachi, it may or may not be terror, it could even be legitimate freedom struggle which pakistan supports politically and diplomatically``
Romair, the amnesty rep for pakistan `` Every one knows that pak consulate is heavily guarded, no one can enter it which suggets that there could human rights violations taking place. Other wise why reporters are not allowed, why UN observers are not allowed. The attack could be ligitimate expressions of the people whose rights have been violated``
YLH the pak historian- `` after reading all the books of wolpert, ayesha jala and kushwant sing, I am convinced that direct action as called by the leader means that any one in the direct line of sight can be killed. The freedom fighters were attacking the US garrison and the pak police where in the direct line of fire, and that is OK.``
Maulana tahmed..`` the people in the US consulate were kafirs and those protecting them are also non-innocents by induction. Killings are religiously OK``.
The news of terrorist attacks on the US consulate in karachi when mushy finished the meeting of non-aligned nations where he expounded the concept of root cause. The following are thestatements issued by the pak delegation.
Mushy- `` there are US troops in pakistan, they are occupying several air bases. Recently a pakistani was taken to the uS and killed. Seceral of afghan and yemeni honoured guests to pakistan have ended up in gundanamo bay. FBI is operating freely in pakistan. Pak people are strugleing for freedom, to everthrow the occupation forces. I have to dig deep to find the roots of the attack in karachi, it may or may not be terror, it could even be legitimate freedom struggle which pakistan supports politically and diplomatically``
Romair, the amnesty rep for pakistan `` Every one knows that pak consulate is heavily guarded, no one can enter it which suggets that there could human rights violations taking place. Other wise why reporters are not allowed, why UN observers are not allowed. The attack could be ligitimate expressions of the people whose rights have been violated``
YLH the pak historian- `` after reading all the books of wolpert, ayesha jala and kushwant sing, I am convinced that direct action as called by the leader means that any one in the direct line of sight can be killed. The freedom fighters were attacking the US garrison and the pak police where in the direct line of fire, and that is OK.``
Maulana tahmed..`` the people in the US consulate were kafirs and those protecting them are also non-innocents by induction. Killings are religiously OK``.
#98 Posted by amit on March 1, 2003 4:01:17 pm
Re:sameerJB#91
Sameer, I am also completely fed up with this Jinnah, Gandhi, ONT, TNT nonsense. We need some new ideas in the subcontinent. The 1Billion plus population should be able to figure out a reasonable way to coexist. Here are my criteria for a better future -
1. Completely give up the objective of redrawing maps. That will never happen when two sides have nukes
2. Completely give up on transfer of people. The last time we did this, it resulted in a holocaust
3. Focus like a laser beam on economic relations. Indo-Pak synergy can exploit tremendous economic opportunities like energy pipelines, trade between central asia, south asia and southeast asia, attracting foreign investment, collaboration on IT etc.
4. Hammer out a reasonable solution on Kashmir. Given that Kashmiris have their own government and they control the land, surely we can work out some compromise, where everyone in India and Pakistan have equal access to Kashmir for tourism, pilgrimage etc.
5. Absolutely clamp down on all forms of religious extremism in both coutntries. All this jihad, Ram temple stuff should be a bad dream
6. Teach a balanced history in both countries
7. Free flow of information, books, cultural exchanges etc. Impose code of conduct on media to prevent demagouging of issues
Sameer, I am also completely fed up with this Jinnah, Gandhi, ONT, TNT nonsense. We need some new ideas in the subcontinent. The 1Billion plus population should be able to figure out a reasonable way to coexist. Here are my criteria for a better future -
1. Completely give up the objective of redrawing maps. That will never happen when two sides have nukes
2. Completely give up on transfer of people. The last time we did this, it resulted in a holocaust
3. Focus like a laser beam on economic relations. Indo-Pak synergy can exploit tremendous economic opportunities like energy pipelines, trade between central asia, south asia and southeast asia, attracting foreign investment, collaboration on IT etc.
4. Hammer out a reasonable solution on Kashmir. Given that Kashmiris have their own government and they control the land, surely we can work out some compromise, where everyone in India and Pakistan have equal access to Kashmir for tourism, pilgrimage etc.
5. Absolutely clamp down on all forms of religious extremism in both coutntries. All this jihad, Ram temple stuff should be a bad dream
6. Teach a balanced history in both countries
7. Free flow of information, books, cultural exchanges etc. Impose code of conduct on media to prevent demagouging of issues
#97 Posted by sadna on March 1, 2003 3:23:43 pm
nasah #83
I don`t think the HP election quite compensates for the `Gujarat anamoly`.
Firstly, HP doesnot have many Muslims, so the Gujarat/Modi-patented Hindutva hate machine had no `fuel`.
Secondly, `secularism` and `pluralism` have to be the universally accepted bottomline in every Indian election tussle, not something whose current `market` value fluctuates from election to election. This result is good, soon after Gujarat, but we are not there yet.
I don`t think the HP election quite compensates for the `Gujarat anamoly`.
Firstly, HP doesnot have many Muslims, so the Gujarat/Modi-patented Hindutva hate machine had no `fuel`.
Secondly, `secularism` and `pluralism` have to be the universally accepted bottomline in every Indian election tussle, not something whose current `market` value fluctuates from election to election. This result is good, soon after Gujarat, but we are not there yet.
#96 Posted by stuka on March 1, 2003 2:56:11 pm
`` I think most of them don`t have very `happening` lives in any case so all they do every day, day in and day out, is write hate messages to each other. Maybe it makes them feel full-filled, satisfied, superior``
Hmm, I thought it was just time pass. I guess I am not getting my money`s worth as I don`t really feel fufilled. Satisfied maybe, but not fulfilled..or superior for that matter!!
:)
#95 Posted by stuka on March 1, 2003 2:24:46 pm
more carap from Mullah Urstruly
``The way the things are going, I see another Pakistan emerging from the womb of Hindustan. The division in 1947 was never fair......the unjust re-occupation of Kashmir, Junagadh, and Hyderabad by Hindus, right after the formula of partition was agreed upon, has spurred the wheel in a certain direction, and that direction is the emergence of another Pakistan. ``
These Mullahs who are sons of pigs act like pigs themselves..keep on eating and eating and fattening themselves on the blood of us Kafirs.
Both Kingdoms, Hyderabad and Jungadh, were Hindu majority areas. The Nizam of Hyderabad should forever be grateful to Hindus that his family was allowed to live in India after what the Razzakars did to Hindus.
The great Hypocrite Urstruly talks of Human rights, whereas these Mullahs conveniently define Non Muslims as Non Humans. He talks of the injustice of Kashmir while demanding the right to rule over Hindu majority areas in Junagadh and Hyderabad.
Plug your ears against the rhetoric of the Mullahs of Lashkar e Taiba and assorted Urstruly types and keep your swords sharp.
``The way the things are going, I see another Pakistan emerging from the womb of Hindustan. The division in 1947 was never fair......the unjust re-occupation of Kashmir, Junagadh, and Hyderabad by Hindus, right after the formula of partition was agreed upon, has spurred the wheel in a certain direction, and that direction is the emergence of another Pakistan. ``
These Mullahs who are sons of pigs act like pigs themselves..keep on eating and eating and fattening themselves on the blood of us Kafirs.
Both Kingdoms, Hyderabad and Jungadh, were Hindu majority areas. The Nizam of Hyderabad should forever be grateful to Hindus that his family was allowed to live in India after what the Razzakars did to Hindus.
The great Hypocrite Urstruly talks of Human rights, whereas these Mullahs conveniently define Non Muslims as Non Humans. He talks of the injustice of Kashmir while demanding the right to rule over Hindu majority areas in Junagadh and Hyderabad.
Plug your ears against the rhetoric of the Mullahs of Lashkar e Taiba and assorted Urstruly types and keep your swords sharp.
#94 Posted by stuka on March 1, 2003 2:24:46 pm
Waisey this is a good article. My previous post was aimed exclusively at Urstruly the Mullah who keeps harping on Junagadh and Hyderbad but studiously manages to avoid the basic question that how could Pakistan ask for Kashmir, Junagadh and Hyderabad and yet call itself principled?
#93 Posted by SameerJB on March 1, 2003 1:53:53 pm
I also agree with hamidm. No matter who started Two-Nation and One-Nation theories, they are not just irrelevant but bad too. They were bad because they overshadowed and supressed real issues as well as real nationalism of various subcontinent nations. One wanted to unite diverse nations and other wanted to breach each and every nation of subcontinent. It divided Bengali, Sindhi, UPite, Panjabi and other nations.
One nation theory was the creation of Christian missionaries who created Congress in ordwer to soften any possible resistance movement, just as the purpose of conversion to the religions of ruling elites in the history was to soften any possible resistance from masses. In the end, it remained true to its purpose and British packed their bags with minimum sacrifice of material or life plus continued sucking up to Liz II as commonwealth head.
Muslim League was also created for the same purpose to keep a check on Congress. The earliest proponents of separate Muslim nation, like Bala Lahori, were more anglophile than average folks.
Except for UP and Bengal, people were not enthusiastic about the hoopla of One and Two nations BS and were coerced into taking sides with the help of all gutterial(?) means.
French west Africa, British east and south Africa and Spanish south and central America did not go the subcontinent way to have one or two nations although Spanish speaking world had lot more in common than Panjabis and Bengalis.
Now nations like Balochis and Tamils have to contribute to the mother countries defenses when they are not threatened by anybody. Balochistan is more part of middle east and Tamil Nadu more of a southeast Asian nation. Islamabad and New Delhi should not be anything more than Strosssberg (sp?).
The freaks obsessed with limiting the discussion between Gandhi and Jinnah or Hindu and Muslims are either ignorant or hypocrite. That is not the peoples` history. It is history of the elite who have always exploited the situation to their advantage. No ML or Congress leader was killed during the partition riot. In fact they became rich overnight by grabbing the properties of departing people. The Chaudhries of Gujrat is the most well-known example of it. History repeats itself! The person responsible for the murder of more than 2000 Sikhs following assassination of Indira Gandhi is the Indian equivalent of the Chaudhry of Gujrat.
The Islamic fundamentalism suncontinent style, sangh parivar, BJP, JI, Jehadis, Modi, madrassahs are the legitimate children of the independent movement. Nehru, Jinnah and Gandhi were stupids, if they did not envision the extension of their super egotistical policies. They might have been ambitious idealist but knew nothing about the dimensions of ambitions. The periphery of their ambitions would turn out to be stronger than the core of their ambitions. That makes whole exercise irrational and emotional.
If Bengalis and UPite were so interested in independence, they should have fought for themselves without dragging rest of the apolitical poor people into it. Before the trio of sissys, Panjab tried for independence on its own under Ghadarites and failed. The sissy trio refused to help them. Now they presided over their fate on table to divide, separate electorate and communal rioting. The people who would pee in thier pants even thinking about fighting and hurting British were the bravest communal killers belonging to Congress and Muslim Laegue.
Saddam is hated because he has killed more of his own people than enemies. Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah presided over the killing of more people of subcontinent than killed in all the Indo-Pak wars and communal rioting in India and Pakistan since then.
They fought to inherit the history of Mughal empire and British Raj than anything else. They should not restricted their ambitions to where they belonged instead of trying to win the support of people who did not care and had no opinion about them.
Subcontinent would have been better off without Gandhi-Nehru-Jinnah, Congress and Muslim League.
One nation theory was the creation of Christian missionaries who created Congress in ordwer to soften any possible resistance movement, just as the purpose of conversion to the religions of ruling elites in the history was to soften any possible resistance from masses. In the end, it remained true to its purpose and British packed their bags with minimum sacrifice of material or life plus continued sucking up to Liz II as commonwealth head.
Muslim League was also created for the same purpose to keep a check on Congress. The earliest proponents of separate Muslim nation, like Bala Lahori, were more anglophile than average folks.
Except for UP and Bengal, people were not enthusiastic about the hoopla of One and Two nations BS and were coerced into taking sides with the help of all gutterial(?) means.
French west Africa, British east and south Africa and Spanish south and central America did not go the subcontinent way to have one or two nations although Spanish speaking world had lot more in common than Panjabis and Bengalis.
Now nations like Balochis and Tamils have to contribute to the mother countries defenses when they are not threatened by anybody. Balochistan is more part of middle east and Tamil Nadu more of a southeast Asian nation. Islamabad and New Delhi should not be anything more than Strosssberg (sp?).
The freaks obsessed with limiting the discussion between Gandhi and Jinnah or Hindu and Muslims are either ignorant or hypocrite. That is not the peoples` history. It is history of the elite who have always exploited the situation to their advantage. No ML or Congress leader was killed during the partition riot. In fact they became rich overnight by grabbing the properties of departing people. The Chaudhries of Gujrat is the most well-known example of it. History repeats itself! The person responsible for the murder of more than 2000 Sikhs following assassination of Indira Gandhi is the Indian equivalent of the Chaudhry of Gujrat.
The Islamic fundamentalism suncontinent style, sangh parivar, BJP, JI, Jehadis, Modi, madrassahs are the legitimate children of the independent movement. Nehru, Jinnah and Gandhi were stupids, if they did not envision the extension of their super egotistical policies. They might have been ambitious idealist but knew nothing about the dimensions of ambitions. The periphery of their ambitions would turn out to be stronger than the core of their ambitions. That makes whole exercise irrational and emotional.
If Bengalis and UPite were so interested in independence, they should have fought for themselves without dragging rest of the apolitical poor people into it. Before the trio of sissys, Panjab tried for independence on its own under Ghadarites and failed. The sissy trio refused to help them. Now they presided over their fate on table to divide, separate electorate and communal rioting. The people who would pee in thier pants even thinking about fighting and hurting British were the bravest communal killers belonging to Congress and Muslim Laegue.
Saddam is hated because he has killed more of his own people than enemies. Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah presided over the killing of more people of subcontinent than killed in all the Indo-Pak wars and communal rioting in India and Pakistan since then.
They fought to inherit the history of Mughal empire and British Raj than anything else. They should not restricted their ambitions to where they belonged instead of trying to win the support of people who did not care and had no opinion about them.
Subcontinent would have been better off without Gandhi-Nehru-Jinnah, Congress and Muslim League.
#92 Posted by rsaxena on March 1, 2003 1:53:53 pm
re: jay #80
...come on, at least leave this match out of your obsession with jihad...winning and losing cricket matches is just a game, not real life...
...i thought it was a nice gesture that the two teams decided before the match to lineup, shake hands, and exchange official team ties...
...come on, at least leave this match out of your obsession with jihad...winning and losing cricket matches is just a game, not real life...
...i thought it was a nice gesture that the two teams decided before the match to lineup, shake hands, and exchange official team ties...
#91 Posted by SameerJB on March 1, 2003 1:53:53 pm
Hor choopo TNT da ganna. Neither One nation, nor two nation; it is fractured nation because of the hangover from independence movement.
Violence breaks out after India`s World Cup win over Pakistan
Violence has erupted in India after the Indian cricket team defeated Pakistan in their World Cup match.
Several shops and vehicles have been burned and at least one person injured in Gujarat.
Rioting was reported in at least six neighbourhoods in Ahmadabad, the region`s largest city.
One man was sent to hospital after being stabbed, say police.
In Vadodara, police shot tear gas shells in three areas to disperse rioting mobs after three cars and a restaurant owned by a Muslim man were set alight.
Violence breaks out after India`s World Cup win over Pakistan
Violence has erupted in India after the Indian cricket team defeated Pakistan in their World Cup match.
Several shops and vehicles have been burned and at least one person injured in Gujarat.
Rioting was reported in at least six neighbourhoods in Ahmadabad, the region`s largest city.
One man was sent to hospital after being stabbed, say police.
In Vadodara, police shot tear gas shells in three areas to disperse rioting mobs after three cars and a restaurant owned by a Muslim man were set alight.
#90 Posted by Tipu on March 1, 2003 10:26:31 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#89 Posted by Tipu on March 1, 2003 10:26:31 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#88 Posted by Ras on March 1, 2003 10:26:31 am
I agree with most of this writing.
The chosen path for Indian Muslims should be self reliance and they
must not depend on outside help (Pakistan, Middle East) to solve their
problems. The pursuit of a western education as charted out by Sir Syed
should remain the top priority.
Ras
#87 Posted by scout on March 1, 2003 9:27:36 am
hamidm2,
great posts on this board....hope the ukp desis bickering here read them carefully.
great posts on this board....hope the ukp desis bickering here read them carefully.
#86 Posted by scout on March 1, 2003 9:27:36 am
over-population, poverty, disease, religious fanaticism.....maybe you `self-righteous` desis should start worrying about that than idiotic jinnah/gandhi debates
#85 Posted by jay on March 1, 2003 9:01:06 am
SPORTS IMITATES POLITICAL REALITY,
Pakistan lost to india in the world cup. After nearly half the game, the pakistanis were simply going through the motions, their head drooped, knew that they have lost to india. The slow leasurely pace of the indian win is no different in the political scene, pakistan is slowly loosing ground in the world stage as a jihadic country. They knew they are loosing, but due to pride and pressures and expectations from the on-llokers and the people who have payed for it, the pakstanis had to undergo the slow humiliation, no different from the sneding of jihadists as though they will make, kashmir banega pakistan.
At the endo of the game only two names remain, tendulkar of india for his achievemnets and soab aktart for his failure, no different from the founding leaders of the two countries.
Tendulkars initial knock layed the foundation for indian success, the failure of soab laid the foundaton for pak defeat. Soab had pace, but it had no direction, no different from the initial policies of pakistan.
Sports imitates life, political life and in one more world stage pakistan is defeated, may be even disgraced, not able to make the last six, first time in world cup history.
Pakistan lost to india in the world cup. After nearly half the game, the pakistanis were simply going through the motions, their head drooped, knew that they have lost to india. The slow leasurely pace of the indian win is no different in the political scene, pakistan is slowly loosing ground in the world stage as a jihadic country. They knew they are loosing, but due to pride and pressures and expectations from the on-llokers and the people who have payed for it, the pakstanis had to undergo the slow humiliation, no different from the sneding of jihadists as though they will make, kashmir banega pakistan.
At the endo of the game only two names remain, tendulkar of india for his achievemnets and soab aktart for his failure, no different from the founding leaders of the two countries.
Tendulkars initial knock layed the foundation for indian success, the failure of soab laid the foundaton for pak defeat. Soab had pace, but it had no direction, no different from the initial policies of pakistan.
Sports imitates life, political life and in one more world stage pakistan is defeated, may be even disgraced, not able to make the last six, first time in world cup history.
#84 Posted by nasah on March 1, 2003 9:01:06 am
it was about time to hang that bloody-beaked, blackhooded Vulture -- Narendre Modi -- by the nearest polling booth in Himachal Pradesh --
thanks -- Garibaldi`s daughter/Gandhi`s daughter-in-law -- FOR reclainming the almost lost dignity of India --
NOW work for -- the Grand Coalition -- at the Center wiithout DELUSIONS -- as the `JUNIOR` partner -- to oust that Babri Criminal -- fugitive Advani from Home to his Tihar Home.
sooo -- afterall Gujrat WAAAAS an ANAMOLY!
viva la Indie
thanks -- Garibaldi`s daughter/Gandhi`s daughter-in-law -- FOR reclainming the almost lost dignity of India --
NOW work for -- the Grand Coalition -- at the Center wiithout DELUSIONS -- as the `JUNIOR` partner -- to oust that Babri Criminal -- fugitive Advani from Home to his Tihar Home.
sooo -- afterall Gujrat WAAAAS an ANAMOLY!
viva la Indie
#83 Posted by veeresh on March 1, 2003 9:01:06 am
Hello YLH, it is good and colonial and very white of you to support Khushwant Singh, now all you need is a membershp of the Republican Party and maybe the NRA as well as the KKK and you will be all set.
However.
regards/Veeresh
However.
regards/Veeresh
#82 Posted by nasah on March 1, 2003 9:01:06 am
it was about time to hang that bloody-beaked, blackhooded Vulture -- Narendre Modi -- by the nearest polling booth in Himachal Pradesh --
thanks -- Garibaldi`s daughter/Gandhi`s daughter-in-law -- FOR reclainming the almost lost dignity of India --
NOW work for -- the Grand Coalition -- at the Center wiithout DELUSIONS -- as the `JUNIOR` partner -- to oust that Babri Criminal -- fugitive Advani from Home to his Tihar Home.
sooo -- afterall Gujrat WAAAAS an ANOOOOMAAAAALY!
viva la Indie
thanks -- Garibaldi`s daughter/Gandhi`s daughter-in-law -- FOR reclainming the almost lost dignity of India --
NOW work for -- the Grand Coalition -- at the Center wiithout DELUSIONS -- as the `JUNIOR` partner -- to oust that Babri Criminal -- fugitive Advani from Home to his Tihar Home.
sooo -- afterall Gujrat WAAAAS an ANOOOOMAAAAALY!
viva la Indie
#80 Posted by mohar11 on March 1, 2003 9:01:06 am
It seems COngress won in HP even after a unfocused campaign marred by faction ridden politics (which sadly has become hallmark of this Grand Old Party of India). That means people must really be hating BJP, at least in HP.
Well - it was about time somebody showed BJP guys the door and a message - it is all about governance stupid!
Well - it was about time somebody showed BJP guys the door and a message - it is all about governance stupid!
#79 Posted by harimau on March 1, 2003 8:01:53 am
Ref YLH2 #70
[tahmed,
You said `If Jinnah ordered the killings`... I think you have taken the wind out of P-mishra`s argument...
Ofcourse we know historically and all historians have confirmed that he didn`t and even the sourceless cut and paste job that p-mishra has done confirms that he didn`t...]
Yasser, dear boy. Please explain Jinnah`s statement to the effect that `today (Direct Action Day), we have unsheathed the pistol`.
By the way, I notice that you have been quite silent about your hero`s idea of minority population as hostages. That is a very democratic concept, I suppose.
But as you keep telling us, Jinnah is a strict constitutionalist. That is why he could probably have written the hostage policy into Pakistan`s constitution and be quite legal about it.
Now that you are back in Pakistan, have you started adding a halo to Jinnah`s portrait? Start off with the postage stamps that you personally use and then you can graduate to the banknotes you handle.
[tahmed,
You said `If Jinnah ordered the killings`... I think you have taken the wind out of P-mishra`s argument...
Ofcourse we know historically and all historians have confirmed that he didn`t and even the sourceless cut and paste job that p-mishra has done confirms that he didn`t...]
Yasser, dear boy. Please explain Jinnah`s statement to the effect that `today (Direct Action Day), we have unsheathed the pistol`.
By the way, I notice that you have been quite silent about your hero`s idea of minority population as hostages. That is a very democratic concept, I suppose.
But as you keep telling us, Jinnah is a strict constitutionalist. That is why he could probably have written the hostage policy into Pakistan`s constitution and be quite legal about it.
Now that you are back in Pakistan, have you started adding a halo to Jinnah`s portrait? Start off with the postage stamps that you personally use and then you can graduate to the banknotes you handle.
#78 Posted by rsaxena on March 1, 2003 8:01:53 am
re: ylh
...still wanking off over jinnah, still deluding yourself, still looking for glory on internet message boards...
...anyone with half a brain and smarts would`ve been studying politics or international relations at the kennedy school at harvard...instead, look at your sorry ass...shame...
...still wanking off over jinnah, still deluding yourself, still looking for glory on internet message boards...
...anyone with half a brain and smarts would`ve been studying politics or international relations at the kennedy school at harvard...instead, look at your sorry ass...shame...
#77 Posted by ferozk on March 1, 2003 8:01:53 am
To summerize the arguments/debate on this thread so far...
...Indians hate Pakistanis and Pakistanis hate Indians; Indians think they are better than Pakistanis and Paksitanis think they are better than Indians...LOL
Ciao
...Indians hate Pakistanis and Pakistanis hate Indians; Indians think they are better than Pakistanis and Paksitanis think they are better than Indians...LOL
Ciao
#75 Posted by tahmed32 on March 1, 2003 8:01:53 am
mohar11 #62 I agree with you and Hamidm that personalities are not important. I also agree with you when you indicate that the real problem - the common enemy for India and Pakistan and indeed for all mankind - is widespread poverty. I also agree with hamidm when he writes that we should start thinking for ourselves rather than accept all sorts of things as foregone conclusions.
I am glad that I finally see something that that you an hamidm have written that I can agree on.
I also am pleased to see (as you indicate) that the Congress won at Himachal Pradhesh. Furthermore I am pleased to see that nazarhayatkhan (ex- pakistan military) outline accurately the damage done to pakistan by the military.
I am glad to read words of praise from ylh2 concerning taking the wind out of p-mishra`s argument.
With everything going so well, I think I shall cash in my chips and quit while I am ahead.
cheers to all! :-)
I am glad that I finally see something that that you an hamidm have written that I can agree on.
I also am pleased to see (as you indicate) that the Congress won at Himachal Pradhesh. Furthermore I am pleased to see that nazarhayatkhan (ex- pakistan military) outline accurately the damage done to pakistan by the military.
I am glad to read words of praise from ylh2 concerning taking the wind out of p-mishra`s argument.
With everything going so well, I think I shall cash in my chips and quit while I am ahead.
cheers to all! :-)
#74 Posted by tahmed32 on March 1, 2003 8:01:53 am
mohar11 #62 I agree with you and Hamidm that personalities are not important. I also agree with you when you indicate that the real problem - the common enemy for India and Pakistan and indeed for all mankind - is widespread poverty. I also agree with hamidm when he writes that we should start thinking for ourselves rather than accept all sorts of things as foregone conclusions.
I am glad that I finally see something that that you an hamidm have written that I can agree on.
I also am pleased to see (as you indicate) that the Congress won at Himachal Pradhesh. Furthermore I am pleased to see that nazarhayatkhan (ex- pakistan military) outline accurately the damage done to pakistan by the military.
I am glad to read words of praise from ylh2 concerning taking the wind out of p-mishra`s argument.
With everything going so well, I think I shall cash in my chips and quit while I am ahead.
cheers to all! :-)
I am glad that I finally see something that that you an hamidm have written that I can agree on.
I also am pleased to see (as you indicate) that the Congress won at Himachal Pradhesh. Furthermore I am pleased to see that nazarhayatkhan (ex- pakistan military) outline accurately the damage done to pakistan by the military.
I am glad to read words of praise from ylh2 concerning taking the wind out of p-mishra`s argument.
With everything going so well, I think I shall cash in my chips and quit while I am ahead.
cheers to all! :-)
#73 Posted by sadna on March 1, 2003 8:01:53 am
12-head #64
Calm down, I think of you as subhuman too.
Calm down, I think of you as subhuman too.
#72 Posted by hamidm2 on March 1, 2003 8:01:53 am
...... jinnahology and the history of the pakistan movement might be interesting subjects for idle academics and fools who live in the past, but it is about as relevant for the average paki as seerat-un-nabi and the mating habits of the quraish of mecca ........... and i am sure gandhiology and the mating habits of monkey kings are just as relevant for the beggars on the streets of kolkatta ........
.......... this obsession of the so-called intelligentsia on both sides of the border condems us to wallow in priomordial muck instead of looking towards the future .........it is nuts!......... the common man in the street, who can`t tell the difference between his elbow and a hole in the ground, listens to all these smart folks mouth-off about jinnah, nehru, savarkar and gandhi and gets all riled up and starts foaming at the mouth .......... the half starved gujju with heeng on his breath, dabs red war paint on his forehead, picks up his three-pronged pitch fork, and sets off to kill his muslim neighbour in ahmedabad who is busy praying to an arab god in mecca .......... on the right side of the border, the niswar and iman crazed pathan, who hasn`t taken a shower in eight months, gives his favourite sheep a hug, picks up his gun, and sets off for kashmir to kill a pandit or any other variety of infidel that he can find ........they are taking direct action .... in the mean time, graduates from rutgers and eastern arizona debate the merits of the Direct Action Day of 1935 or whenever..........what madness!
............ i propose a ban on teaching, reading or writing history - it doesn`t serve any purpose ............. instead of wasting our time learning about who did what to who, we should teach the ignorant gujjus and odoriferous pathans the basics of astronomy and personal hygiene ............. the world will be a better and less smelly place to live..........
.......... this obsession of the so-called intelligentsia on both sides of the border condems us to wallow in priomordial muck instead of looking towards the future .........it is nuts!......... the common man in the street, who can`t tell the difference between his elbow and a hole in the ground, listens to all these smart folks mouth-off about jinnah, nehru, savarkar and gandhi and gets all riled up and starts foaming at the mouth .......... the half starved gujju with heeng on his breath, dabs red war paint on his forehead, picks up his three-pronged pitch fork, and sets off to kill his muslim neighbour in ahmedabad who is busy praying to an arab god in mecca .......... on the right side of the border, the niswar and iman crazed pathan, who hasn`t taken a shower in eight months, gives his favourite sheep a hug, picks up his gun, and sets off for kashmir to kill a pandit or any other variety of infidel that he can find ........they are taking direct action .... in the mean time, graduates from rutgers and eastern arizona debate the merits of the Direct Action Day of 1935 or whenever..........what madness!
............ i propose a ban on teaching, reading or writing history - it doesn`t serve any purpose ............. instead of wasting our time learning about who did what to who, we should teach the ignorant gujjus and odoriferous pathans the basics of astronomy and personal hygiene ............. the world will be a better and less smelly place to live..........
#71 Posted by pmishra2 on March 1, 2003 8:01:53 am
The BJP has been defeated in HP ! Good news for all indians. Bad news for all fanatics. With a bit of luck this marks the end of the hyper-religous post-Gujarat politics. Or at least the beginnings of a return to common-sense and governance.
#70 YLH2
Oh, great descendant of the prophet (or at least his servants). You can twist and turn all you like on Jinnah, but history will always link the murders of direct action day with him. And history will judge him harshly for that. No different from the way history will judge Vajpayee and the Gujarat killings. In each case, a senior political leader was unwilling to personally intervene and stop mob violence.
As for your cheaply expedient and selective worship of Gandhi, the less said about it the better. You are responding only to Gandhi`s pacifisim and his critique of militarized nation states. Gandhi was also a devout hindu, he believed in sanctity of the cow, his language was full of ``ram-rajya``. Needless to say your ``respect`` for him would never include these aspects. So we can see through your cheap propaganda (look the bad, bad indians dont even follow Gandhi !) !!
#70 YLH2
Oh, great descendant of the prophet (or at least his servants). You can twist and turn all you like on Jinnah, but history will always link the murders of direct action day with him. And history will judge him harshly for that. No different from the way history will judge Vajpayee and the Gujarat killings. In each case, a senior political leader was unwilling to personally intervene and stop mob violence.
As for your cheaply expedient and selective worship of Gandhi, the less said about it the better. You are responding only to Gandhi`s pacifisim and his critique of militarized nation states. Gandhi was also a devout hindu, he believed in sanctity of the cow, his language was full of ``ram-rajya``. Needless to say your ``respect`` for him would never include these aspects. So we can see through your cheap propaganda (look the bad, bad indians dont even follow Gandhi !) !!
#70 Posted by YLH2 on March 1, 2003 12:00:35 am
tahmed,
You said `If Jinnah ordered the killings`... I think you have taken the wind out of P-mishra`s argument...
Ofcourse we know historically and all historians have confirmed that he didn`t and even the sourceless cut and paste job that p-mishra has done confirms that he didn`t...
From P-Mishra 46,
``Opposed to a British plan for Indian independence that did not also create Pakistan, he designated the 18th day of Ramadan as ``Direct Action Day.`` ``Though direct,`` ``the action was supposed to be peaceful``
And other than Calcutta, hundred of miles from Jinnah`s own physical presence, it was peaceful in most cities all over India.. especially in the city Jinnah was himself physically present and where Muslims were actually in a Majority... infact the famous pro-Congress newspaper Blitz hailed it a great anti-imperialist movement akin to Gandhi`s own non-violent civil disobedience... no newspapers of the time blamed the killings on Jinnah... No Historian of any repute like Hodson, and even anti-Pakistan authors like Collins etc have accused Jinnah of what Mr.Mishra is accusing him of on this board... as time goes by it seems that revisionist historians have started making up this story sadly... they say if you say a lie loud enough it becomes the truth... I suspect that is exactly what P-Mishra`s attempt is ...
The truth is that comparing Jinnah to Savarkar or Advani or Narendra modi is more akin to comparing Gandhi to Hitler... the biggest difference between Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the only politician to be called the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity, and the thugs p-mishra is trying to compare him to is that Jinnah stood for the rights and the right of self determination for a minority, while these thugs stand for the domination of a Majority.... its like saying that Malcolm X was the equivalent of KKK`s leaders... an accusation some amongst the white folk have levelled in the past. Perhaps the best defence of Jinnah against these accusations has come from an Indian... Khushwant Singh...
If only the self proclaimed Gandhians like P-Mishra were not so motivated by hate as to cloud their vision of history... Just as Jinnah might be spinning in his grave at the state of his followers, Gandhi`s spirit I am sure would find no rest after reading the hate filled monologues against Pakistan and Jinnah by his followers!
Over and Out...
Long Live Jinnah`s Pakistan and Khushwant`s (read Gandhi`s) India..
-YLH
You said `If Jinnah ordered the killings`... I think you have taken the wind out of P-mishra`s argument...
Ofcourse we know historically and all historians have confirmed that he didn`t and even the sourceless cut and paste job that p-mishra has done confirms that he didn`t...
From P-Mishra 46,
``Opposed to a British plan for Indian independence that did not also create Pakistan, he designated the 18th day of Ramadan as ``Direct Action Day.`` ``Though direct,`` ``the action was supposed to be peaceful``
And other than Calcutta, hundred of miles from Jinnah`s own physical presence, it was peaceful in most cities all over India.. especially in the city Jinnah was himself physically present and where Muslims were actually in a Majority... infact the famous pro-Congress newspaper Blitz hailed it a great anti-imperialist movement akin to Gandhi`s own non-violent civil disobedience... no newspapers of the time blamed the killings on Jinnah... No Historian of any repute like Hodson, and even anti-Pakistan authors like Collins etc have accused Jinnah of what Mr.Mishra is accusing him of on this board... as time goes by it seems that revisionist historians have started making up this story sadly... they say if you say a lie loud enough it becomes the truth... I suspect that is exactly what P-Mishra`s attempt is ...
The truth is that comparing Jinnah to Savarkar or Advani or Narendra modi is more akin to comparing Gandhi to Hitler... the biggest difference between Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the only politician to be called the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity, and the thugs p-mishra is trying to compare him to is that Jinnah stood for the rights and the right of self determination for a minority, while these thugs stand for the domination of a Majority.... its like saying that Malcolm X was the equivalent of KKK`s leaders... an accusation some amongst the white folk have levelled in the past. Perhaps the best defence of Jinnah against these accusations has come from an Indian... Khushwant Singh...
If only the self proclaimed Gandhians like P-Mishra were not so motivated by hate as to cloud their vision of history... Just as Jinnah might be spinning in his grave at the state of his followers, Gandhi`s spirit I am sure would find no rest after reading the hate filled monologues against Pakistan and Jinnah by his followers!
Over and Out...
Long Live Jinnah`s Pakistan and Khushwant`s (read Gandhi`s) India..
-YLH
#69 Posted by mohar11 on February 28, 2003 11:52:02 pm
Breaking News: looks like Congress is winning in Himachal Pradesh hands down. So much for ``gujrat experminet``, ``soft hindutva`` and what not...
#68 Posted by YLH2 on February 28, 2003 11:52:02 pm
Arjunm,
Do you always assume the worse about everyone or is it just when it comes to me?
Quite clearly you have misunderstood the old post you seem to posting again and again ... No where have I endorsed the use of terrorism... what I was saying was that in the classical machiavellian fashion ISI has been abusing the Kashmir issue for the sake of bogging down Indian troops there, and that it doesn`t give a damn about the right of self determination or even the stated Pakistani position on Kashmir... I was merely stating the strategy of the ISI and no where did I say I endorsed it... instead I was baffled by the response of the Indian Government and the Military which has quite clearly played into the hands of the ISI ...
Had you read my post in the context of the debate, you would realize that I have always stood against such idiotic tactics as employed by the ISI in Afghanistan and Kashmir, ... in Afghanistan it has created immense resentment and in Kashmir it has de legitimized the genuine freedom struggle... Perhaps your misunderstanding is genuine... but perhaps you are doing it just to malign me...
It is a fact that ISI has used the insurgency in Kashmir for its own objectives which many in Pakistan believe are counter productive to Pakistani position. Anyone who stands for Democracy, and progress in Pakistan can never support the ISI or its stupid strategies... I have always been very clear on this point... Pakistani patriot I maybe but I distinguish Pakistan from ISI...
Sadna
``One irony no Jinnah fanatic will acknowledge when talking of `constitutionalism` is that in India Jinnah is considered to be one of the founding fathers of the INDIAN Constitution :). ``
On the contrary I have mentioned this many times... here you have shown me that you don`t read my posts completely leading to most of the misunderstanding between us.
P-mishra,
You can take that view... but there are two or three points you should consider...
1) Jinnah had clearly called for a civil disobedience movement and explaining direct action day had explained it as a peaceful movement .. Please read his announcements and press releases leading up to the day especially on 14th and 15th of August...
2) Don`t you think it is ironic that it was celebrated as a peaceful civil disobedience movement in the rest of India especially where Jinnah was present and all the Muslim majority areas, but disturbance started in Calcutta hundred of miles away from where Jinnah was?
3) Even Lapierre and Collins, two extremely anti-Pakistan writers, have not accused Jinnah of Calcutta Riots choosing instead Suhrawardy for their wrath?? Most serious historians have not accused Jinnah of this particular event...
4) Consider this: If Gandhi called for civil disobedience movement, and somewhere a bunch of his followers burnt another people alive (as with the Chaura Chauri incident amongst others) ? Will Gandhi be accused of that?
We know quite clearly that Jinnah abhorred Violence as much as Gandhi did, if not more... so I don`t think it is fair to lay the blame at his feet... and Historians clearly haven`t in their works of repute...
-YLH
Do you always assume the worse about everyone or is it just when it comes to me?
Quite clearly you have misunderstood the old post you seem to posting again and again ... No where have I endorsed the use of terrorism... what I was saying was that in the classical machiavellian fashion ISI has been abusing the Kashmir issue for the sake of bogging down Indian troops there, and that it doesn`t give a damn about the right of self determination or even the stated Pakistani position on Kashmir... I was merely stating the strategy of the ISI and no where did I say I endorsed it... instead I was baffled by the response of the Indian Government and the Military which has quite clearly played into the hands of the ISI ...
Had you read my post in the context of the debate, you would realize that I have always stood against such idiotic tactics as employed by the ISI in Afghanistan and Kashmir, ... in Afghanistan it has created immense resentment and in Kashmir it has de legitimized the genuine freedom struggle... Perhaps your misunderstanding is genuine... but perhaps you are doing it just to malign me...
It is a fact that ISI has used the insurgency in Kashmir for its own objectives which many in Pakistan believe are counter productive to Pakistani position. Anyone who stands for Democracy, and progress in Pakistan can never support the ISI or its stupid strategies... I have always been very clear on this point... Pakistani patriot I maybe but I distinguish Pakistan from ISI...
Sadna
``One irony no Jinnah fanatic will acknowledge when talking of `constitutionalism` is that in India Jinnah is considered to be one of the founding fathers of the INDIAN Constitution :). ``
On the contrary I have mentioned this many times... here you have shown me that you don`t read my posts completely leading to most of the misunderstanding between us.
P-mishra,
You can take that view... but there are two or three points you should consider...
1) Jinnah had clearly called for a civil disobedience movement and explaining direct action day had explained it as a peaceful movement .. Please read his announcements and press releases leading up to the day especially on 14th and 15th of August...
2) Don`t you think it is ironic that it was celebrated as a peaceful civil disobedience movement in the rest of India especially where Jinnah was present and all the Muslim majority areas, but disturbance started in Calcutta hundred of miles away from where Jinnah was?
3) Even Lapierre and Collins, two extremely anti-Pakistan writers, have not accused Jinnah of Calcutta Riots choosing instead Suhrawardy for their wrath?? Most serious historians have not accused Jinnah of this particular event...
4) Consider this: If Gandhi called for civil disobedience movement, and somewhere a bunch of his followers burnt another people alive (as with the Chaura Chauri incident amongst others) ? Will Gandhi be accused of that?
We know quite clearly that Jinnah abhorred Violence as much as Gandhi did, if not more... so I don`t think it is fair to lay the blame at his feet... and Historians clearly haven`t in their works of repute...
-YLH
#66 Posted by Tipu on February 28, 2003 11:51:33 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#65 Posted by nazarhayatkhan on February 28, 2003 11:50:21 pm
Reply #49 nakhok
I completely agree with. Pakistani politiocians must have wangled at best 3-4 billion dollars.
But the miltary did a far greater damage:
* Ayub`s needless 65 war.
* Yahya`s ineptitude in separation of East Pakistan & 71 War.
* Zia`s Islamization and its disastrous affects on Pakistan`s body politic.
* Musharaf`s folly of Kargil.
* The economy going down the hill and weekening of the state`s institutions.
Reply #33 Sobia
I agree. But there is a learning value to all this fire & fury. One gets to hear the extreme views on both sides. Some times a new piece of information and aspect comes up.
Barring the recent `safronization policy` of India, the Indian leaders have done well. And the Indian`s on the Chowk do not need to defend much.
But there is a reluctance on their part to openly accept whatever mistakes have been done by their leaders.
Whereas, the Pakistanis seem to angry, justifiably so, with their leaders and how they let the country down. But they have no hesitation in calling a spade a spade.
As for me, frankly, I am beginning to have doubts about the wisdom of partition. It has only increased the miseries of a common man rather than having solved a problem.
Nothing can be undone now. We can only find a solution.
And the solution is a South Asian union like the EU.
I completely agree with. Pakistani politiocians must have wangled at best 3-4 billion dollars.
But the miltary did a far greater damage:
* Ayub`s needless 65 war.
* Yahya`s ineptitude in separation of East Pakistan & 71 War.
* Zia`s Islamization and its disastrous affects on Pakistan`s body politic.
* Musharaf`s folly of Kargil.
* The economy going down the hill and weekening of the state`s institutions.
Reply #33 Sobia
I agree. But there is a learning value to all this fire & fury. One gets to hear the extreme views on both sides. Some times a new piece of information and aspect comes up.
Barring the recent `safronization policy` of India, the Indian leaders have done well. And the Indian`s on the Chowk do not need to defend much.
But there is a reluctance on their part to openly accept whatever mistakes have been done by their leaders.
Whereas, the Pakistanis seem to angry, justifiably so, with their leaders and how they let the country down. But they have no hesitation in calling a spade a spade.
As for me, frankly, I am beginning to have doubts about the wisdom of partition. It has only increased the miseries of a common man rather than having solved a problem.
Nothing can be undone now. We can only find a solution.
And the solution is a South Asian union like the EU.
#64 Posted by Tipu on February 28, 2003 9:10:31 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#63 Posted by jay on February 28, 2003 8:32:01 pm
VIOLENECE IN INDIA
If pakistan wins today in cricket and if the muslims celebrate, as it happens in some areas of UP and delhi, there will be some minor troubles. Because pakistanis are custodians of safety of indian muslims, may be they should play accordingly.
If pakistan wins today in cricket and if the muslims celebrate, as it happens in some areas of UP and delhi, there will be some minor troubles. Because pakistanis are custodians of safety of indian muslims, may be they should play accordingly.
#62 Posted by jay on February 28, 2003 8:31:44 pm
, ``as a believer of Jinnah`s vision of Pakistan (a modern democratic pluralistic state) also realize that the greatest allies we have in this world are the true Gandhians across the borders (no matter what reservations I might have had in the past about Gandhi) and therefore once again I extend my hand of friendship to the self proclaimed Gandhians on this board... (but ofcourse once again I only expect to be snubbed, harrassed and abused)... ``
///Above is paost from YLH, the so called educated pakistani represent the nature of pakistanis. He is extending hand of friendship to indians on chowk, a forum that is insignificant, a place for entertainment, paki bashing. If he has any iota of honesty, if he believes in peaceful existence with other religions, if he is not a belever of TNt that created pakistan, he would have done something significant. He would have posted the same about ahmadias, if he had cared to post an article about abdus salam, if he had dared to say that hinduism or for that matter ahmadia is a religion as good as islam, in theat mostrocity created by jinnaha, YLh would not have seen another sunrise.
True to the vision of TNT and its creator, pakistan is country where no one can say anything positive about another religion and hope to live for another day. YLH is the ultimate example of a typical pakistani, the ultimate proof of dawvinism, that what is genetic, no education can change. YLh write the same about ahmadias of pakistan, tell what you think about the treatment given to abdus slam. If you dare to do that let me say, rest in peace, in tune with the visions of the creator pakistan.
///Above is paost from YLH, the so called educated pakistani represent the nature of pakistanis. He is extending hand of friendship to indians on chowk, a forum that is insignificant, a place for entertainment, paki bashing. If he has any iota of honesty, if he believes in peaceful existence with other religions, if he is not a belever of TNt that created pakistan, he would have done something significant. He would have posted the same about ahmadias, if he had cared to post an article about abdus salam, if he had dared to say that hinduism or for that matter ahmadia is a religion as good as islam, in theat mostrocity created by jinnaha, YLh would not have seen another sunrise.
True to the vision of TNT and its creator, pakistan is country where no one can say anything positive about another religion and hope to live for another day. YLH is the ultimate example of a typical pakistani, the ultimate proof of dawvinism, that what is genetic, no education can change. YLh write the same about ahmadias of pakistan, tell what you think about the treatment given to abdus slam. If you dare to do that let me say, rest in peace, in tune with the visions of the creator pakistan.
#61 Posted by mohar11 on February 28, 2003 8:31:44 pm
#57 by hamidm2
//............jinnah and gandhi?........who gives a flip about what they stood for - they are both dead and buried //
I agree. Jinah, Gandhi, Savarkar, Nehru - who cares! They all fcuked up big time! If these guys were so great, had so great visions for their masses then why are the masses in the subcontinent so miserable a lot? The very fact that people they represented ( or claimed to do so) are still mired in poverty and backwardness proves that all these ``leaders`` have failed miserbly.
I think it is time to move on. The following aritcle makes a case for clean break from the past.
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=19272
EXCERPTS:
+++
...Perhaps the only politician who has made a conscious break from .... past is Chandrababu Naidu. He asks for votes on the promise of a better future rather than in the memory of his father-in-law. The results, you would say, are encouraging...
+++
More powers to people like Naidu.
//............jinnah and gandhi?........who gives a flip about what they stood for - they are both dead and buried //
I agree. Jinah, Gandhi, Savarkar, Nehru - who cares! They all fcuked up big time! If these guys were so great, had so great visions for their masses then why are the masses in the subcontinent so miserable a lot? The very fact that people they represented ( or claimed to do so) are still mired in poverty and backwardness proves that all these ``leaders`` have failed miserbly.
I think it is time to move on. The following aritcle makes a case for clean break from the past.
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=19272
EXCERPTS:
+++
...Perhaps the only politician who has made a conscious break from .... past is Chandrababu Naidu. He asks for votes on the promise of a better future rather than in the memory of his father-in-law. The results, you would say, are encouraging...
+++
More powers to people like Naidu.
#60 Posted by jay on February 28, 2003 8:31:43 pm
VERSIONS OF ISLAM,
The version of islam followed by taliban came from pakistan, from the pak madrassas, a version consistant with the ideology of religious hatred enshrined in TNT. It led to the demolistion bhumian statues that survived even the gaznavia, but could not withstand the jinnahic islam.
Now after the overthrow of taliban, it is karzai, a muslim educated in india. It is islam, but what difference the influence of TNT makes on the same book.
The version of islam followed by taliban came from pakistan, from the pak madrassas, a version consistant with the ideology of religious hatred enshrined in TNT. It led to the demolistion bhumian statues that survived even the gaznavia, but could not withstand the jinnahic islam.
Now after the overthrow of taliban, it is karzai, a muslim educated in india. It is islam, but what difference the influence of TNT makes on the same book.
#59 Posted by sadna on February 28, 2003 7:24:14 pm
12-head #51
``it just shows final solution was not achieved. ``
``it is the INDIAN people who are sub human with only occasional flash of humanity``
Congratulations! You have clearly enunciated what I think are two basic axioms of Pakistan`s policy toward India.
If you(and a number of others) had not missed taking your vitamins in your childhood, you would ask yourselves two questions which beg to be asked given the above two axioms
1. What is the point in complaining subhumans about their secularism?
2. What prevents Pakistanis from `achieving the final solution` wrt the subhumans ?
But you (and a number of others) did miss taking your vitamins in your childhood.
``it just shows final solution was not achieved. ``
``it is the INDIAN people who are sub human with only occasional flash of humanity``
Congratulations! You have clearly enunciated what I think are two basic axioms of Pakistan`s policy toward India.
If you(and a number of others) had not missed taking your vitamins in your childhood, you would ask yourselves two questions which beg to be asked given the above two axioms
1. What is the point in complaining subhumans about their secularism?
2. What prevents Pakistanis from `achieving the final solution` wrt the subhumans ?
But you (and a number of others) did miss taking your vitamins in your childhood.
#58 Posted by pmishra2 on February 28, 2003 6:49:02 pm
#53 tahmed
[quote]
If Jinnah ordered riots against hindus, and mass killings, as you say, then he would certainly be in the same league is savarkar
[ quote]
It is sad to see such a pathetic evasion of facts and history. It is more and more reminiscent of supporters of Narendra Modi. You will hear them say despicable things like: Is there any proof he ordered or even supported the Gujarat killings? You are merely echoing their logic.
What is your explanation of the massacres of ``Direct Action Day``? All reasonable people wiould have to accept Jinnah`s culpability in the mass muirder of his fellow citizens. At least Sarvarkar never sank to this level.
[quote]
If Jinnah ordered riots against hindus, and mass killings, as you say, then he would certainly be in the same league is savarkar
[ quote]
It is sad to see such a pathetic evasion of facts and history. It is more and more reminiscent of supporters of Narendra Modi. You will hear them say despicable things like: Is there any proof he ordered or even supported the Gujarat killings? You are merely echoing their logic.
What is your explanation of the massacres of ``Direct Action Day``? All reasonable people wiould have to accept Jinnah`s culpability in the mass muirder of his fellow citizens. At least Sarvarkar never sank to this level.
#57 Posted by hamidm2 on February 28, 2003 6:49:02 pm
temporal
............jinnah and gandhi?........who gives a flip about what they stood for - they are both dead and buried (or cremated, or whatever it is that the horrible hindoos do with their dead) ............ and as much as we would like to create and perpetuate silly little myths about them, they were vain little creatures who fooled themselves into believing that they were somehow responsible for shaping the destiny of the unwashed masses ......... they are all the same - jinnah, gandhi, hitler, muhammad (pbuh), churchill and jesus ........ all the same ........ small men with small p%&#ses and large egos ............. i think that the very concept of leadership is flawed - it is based on the premise that somehow some men (and women) are better than others and have the right to tell people how to think and how to act .......... it is based on the silly notion that the ``common`` man is downright stupid and needs someone to ``lead`` him ......... it is a frightening concept that we have all bought into ................we scamper around like dumb automatons seeking affirmation, confirmation and guidance from these superior beings ............ the very concept smacks of stupidity ..............
......... maybe one day we will evolve to the point where we can think for ourselves ............. this crap about ``so and so said this and therfore we have to do this`` is just that - crap!
.... i don`t know if this makes any sense, but as a ``common`` man i sometimes feel that i am being rail-roaded by folks who think they are cleverer than me ........ why? ........ i resent that........ but we are too lazy to think for ourselves and have grown to accept this system of leaders and followers ......... it is frightenting to think that individuals who are either mad or stupid, or both, control our destiny ............
............jinnah and gandhi?........who gives a flip about what they stood for - they are both dead and buried (or cremated, or whatever it is that the horrible hindoos do with their dead) ............ and as much as we would like to create and perpetuate silly little myths about them, they were vain little creatures who fooled themselves into believing that they were somehow responsible for shaping the destiny of the unwashed masses ......... they are all the same - jinnah, gandhi, hitler, muhammad (pbuh), churchill and jesus ........ all the same ........ small men with small p%&#ses and large egos ............. i think that the very concept of leadership is flawed - it is based on the premise that somehow some men (and women) are better than others and have the right to tell people how to think and how to act .......... it is based on the silly notion that the ``common`` man is downright stupid and needs someone to ``lead`` him ......... it is a frightening concept that we have all bought into ................we scamper around like dumb automatons seeking affirmation, confirmation and guidance from these superior beings ............ the very concept smacks of stupidity ..............
......... maybe one day we will evolve to the point where we can think for ourselves ............. this crap about ``so and so said this and therfore we have to do this`` is just that - crap!
.... i don`t know if this makes any sense, but as a ``common`` man i sometimes feel that i am being rail-roaded by folks who think they are cleverer than me ........ why? ........ i resent that........ but we are too lazy to think for ourselves and have grown to accept this system of leaders and followers ......... it is frightenting to think that individuals who are either mad or stupid, or both, control our destiny ............
#56 Posted by friend on February 28, 2003 6:49:02 pm
Yaseer Latifey # various
So you are back!! B R Ambedkar has written a detailed analysis of Jinnah`s strategy. I suggest you to read them.
Now you are harping a lot on Savarkar being originator of TNT. Savarkar had a very small following in `47. Gandhi was supreme. Even when Savarkar died, his followers didn`t have more than 5 percent seats in Parliament. It was Jinnah who played card of TNT to maximum and created a monster out of it.
Now run and hide behind your exams!!
So you are back!! B R Ambedkar has written a detailed analysis of Jinnah`s strategy. I suggest you to read them.
Now you are harping a lot on Savarkar being originator of TNT. Savarkar had a very small following in `47. Gandhi was supreme. Even when Savarkar died, his followers didn`t have more than 5 percent seats in Parliament. It was Jinnah who played card of TNT to maximum and created a monster out of it.
Now run and hide behind your exams!!
#55 Posted by harimau on February 28, 2003 3:58:55 pm
Ref Humsab #30 and others who attack Hamidm
Hamidm is the funniest interactor on Chowk. You can be sure he enjoys a plate of idli and dosa as much as the average South Indian who can`t have enough of them. He just likes to poke fun at things and people. If you are offended by him, it only means that you are (hopefully, it is only temporary) humor-impaired.
Hamidm is the funniest interactor on Chowk. You can be sure he enjoys a plate of idli and dosa as much as the average South Indian who can`t have enough of them. He just likes to poke fun at things and people. If you are offended by him, it only means that you are (hopefully, it is only temporary) humor-impaired.
#54 Posted by tahmed32 on February 28, 2003 3:58:45 pm
pmishra #42 If Jinnah ordered riots against hindus, and mass killings, as you say, then he would certainly be in the same league is savarkar. I am not here to defend any individual. I am against hero worship of any kind in any case, and I dont believe in hanging anyone`s pictures - even if it is Jinnah or Gandhi - around offices. This is true ``idol worship`` in my view. It is ideals that are important, not individual men, and by focussing on pictures of men we forget that no man is a saint, and we forget that it is the ideals that individual tried to live up to that are important. So, I will let the chowk warriors can fight it out like ``pind thee budhiaN`` (i.e. ``old women in villages`` as they say in panjabi), and I am not interested in such debates on personalities.
To me the relevant issues are those that affect the future. It is in this context that I mentioned the Washington Post article on the pomp and ceremony with which savarkar`s picture was placed next to Gandhi`s by BJP. I see this as another step in India`s march in the wrong direction, since economic progress and chauvinism are a dangerous mix, and for which both India and Pakistan have already paid a heavy price in terms of violence, divisiveness within their societies, as well as strategic blunders in matters of national security.
To me the relevant issues are those that affect the future. It is in this context that I mentioned the Washington Post article on the pomp and ceremony with which savarkar`s picture was placed next to Gandhi`s by BJP. I see this as another step in India`s march in the wrong direction, since economic progress and chauvinism are a dangerous mix, and for which both India and Pakistan have already paid a heavy price in terms of violence, divisiveness within their societies, as well as strategic blunders in matters of national security.
#53 Posted by temporal on February 28, 2003 3:58:45 pm
tahmed:
here is a sneak quote from an article am writing on cancer re: Gandhi/Jinnah:
Both nations have clouded the ideals of Gandhi and Jinnah. Aside from their portrait hung in all government offices their only practical legacy is etched on the 500 rupees note to facilitate corruption.
cynically yours,
...t
here is a sneak quote from an article am writing on cancer re: Gandhi/Jinnah:
Both nations have clouded the ideals of Gandhi and Jinnah. Aside from their portrait hung in all government offices their only practical legacy is etched on the 500 rupees note to facilitate corruption.
cynically yours,
...t
#52 Posted by Tipu on February 28, 2003 3:58:44 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#51 Posted by UmerMurtaza on February 28, 2003 3:58:44 pm
Sameer JB,
`Take away their identity`,
Yeah, much like Stalin took away the identities of Central Asians, imposed Russian and rewrote their history. A bit like that, I assume?
Is this what Buddhism teaches you?
Umer M.
`Take away their identity`,
Yeah, much like Stalin took away the identities of Central Asians, imposed Russian and rewrote their history. A bit like that, I assume?
Is this what Buddhism teaches you?
Umer M.
#50 Posted by tahmed32 on February 28, 2003 1:47:26 pm
ylh2 #43 you write ``again I extend my hand of friendship to the self proclaimed Gandhians on this board... (but ofcourse once again I only expect to be snubbed, harrassed and abused)... ``
Try ``ignored``. Instead of ``snubbed, harassed and abused``. :-)
Try ``ignored``. Instead of ``snubbed, harassed and abused``. :-)
#49 Posted by nakhok on February 28, 2003 12:38:58 pm
#27 by nazarhayatkhan
India is a status quo power. Regardless of its current public stance, India will gladly agree to turning the LOC into a permanent international border. It is Pakistan that feels that it must acquire the entire Jammu & Kashmir to ``finish the unfinished business of partition.``
Pakistan`s ruling elite has a vested interest to paint India as the eternal enemy of Pakistan. It will continue to do so even if India were to aquiesce to the permanent exile of all residents of Jammu & Kashmir whose ethnicity, ideology or faith does not meet the approval of Pakistan`s ruling elite and even if India were to hand over the entire state of Jammu & Kashmir on a platter to Pakistan.
When Pakistan`s military swears by:
(1) the ``martial race theory``
(2) asserts that one Pakistani soldier can take care of ten ``Hindu`` soldiers or,
(3) promises compatriots that they will unfurl Pakistan`s flag at the Red Fort,
it does so, not because it believes in the bluster, but because that makes it easier for the military to usurp a disproportionate share of the country`s wealth for the Kakul kleptocrats.
In real life, Pakistan`s military has always been far tougher on its own citizens, most of them unarmed, than on armed soldiers of ``enemy`` countries. Thus, General Tikka Khan is far better known to the world as the Butcher of Bengal and as the Butcher of Balochistan than as the Knight in shining armor who will ride his big white horse to the Red Fort to unfurl Pakistan`s flag.
When Pakistan`s military breathes fire, it is to ``prove`` to Pakistani citizens that the military is indispensable to the nation`s welfare. But this is nothing but a fraud because the primary aim is to make sure that Pakistan`s army can continue steal a disproportinate share of the country`s wealth for itself.
I have no reason to believe that Pakistan`s ruling elite cares any more for justice in Jammu & Kashmir than it cares for justice for the residents in Pakistan itself or for justice to the ``Biharis`` left to rot in refugee camps for 3 decades.
Those that had preached, ``Haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan,`` on the morrow of independence, those that continue to preach, ``One Pakistani soldier is more than ten ``Hindu`` soldiers,`` will not change their tune or stance even if Jammu & Kashmir is handed over to them on a platter. They have a strong need to have India as an enemy country to justify the usurption of a disproportionate share of the nation`s wealth for themselves.
Pakistan`s military lobby was strong enough to force the break-away of the majority of Pakistanis in 1971 in order to preserve its own interest in the rest of the country. Today, it is just as determined to perpetuate conflict with India and for the very same reason. Jammu & Kashmir is merely the most convenient excuse at the moment. But, in its absence, it won`t take long for Pakistan`s military to find yet another excuse.
But there is a limit to what the people will tolerate. And when the Kakul kleptocrats exhausted the patience of the long suffering ordinary citizens of Pakistan, the Tsunami of their wrath did not spare even the Ayub Khans and the Yahya Khans. It will not spare Pervez Musharraf either.
India is a status quo power. Regardless of its current public stance, India will gladly agree to turning the LOC into a permanent international border. It is Pakistan that feels that it must acquire the entire Jammu & Kashmir to ``finish the unfinished business of partition.``
Pakistan`s ruling elite has a vested interest to paint India as the eternal enemy of Pakistan. It will continue to do so even if India were to aquiesce to the permanent exile of all residents of Jammu & Kashmir whose ethnicity, ideology or faith does not meet the approval of Pakistan`s ruling elite and even if India were to hand over the entire state of Jammu & Kashmir on a platter to Pakistan.
When Pakistan`s military swears by:
(1) the ``martial race theory``
(2) asserts that one Pakistani soldier can take care of ten ``Hindu`` soldiers or,
(3) promises compatriots that they will unfurl Pakistan`s flag at the Red Fort,
it does so, not because it believes in the bluster, but because that makes it easier for the military to usurp a disproportionate share of the country`s wealth for the Kakul kleptocrats.
In real life, Pakistan`s military has always been far tougher on its own citizens, most of them unarmed, than on armed soldiers of ``enemy`` countries. Thus, General Tikka Khan is far better known to the world as the Butcher of Bengal and as the Butcher of Balochistan than as the Knight in shining armor who will ride his big white horse to the Red Fort to unfurl Pakistan`s flag.
When Pakistan`s military breathes fire, it is to ``prove`` to Pakistani citizens that the military is indispensable to the nation`s welfare. But this is nothing but a fraud because the primary aim is to make sure that Pakistan`s army can continue steal a disproportinate share of the country`s wealth for itself.
I have no reason to believe that Pakistan`s ruling elite cares any more for justice in Jammu & Kashmir than it cares for justice for the residents in Pakistan itself or for justice to the ``Biharis`` left to rot in refugee camps for 3 decades.
Those that had preached, ``Haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan,`` on the morrow of independence, those that continue to preach, ``One Pakistani soldier is more than ten ``Hindu`` soldiers,`` will not change their tune or stance even if Jammu & Kashmir is handed over to them on a platter. They have a strong need to have India as an enemy country to justify the usurption of a disproportionate share of the nation`s wealth for themselves.
Pakistan`s military lobby was strong enough to force the break-away of the majority of Pakistanis in 1971 in order to preserve its own interest in the rest of the country. Today, it is just as determined to perpetuate conflict with India and for the very same reason. Jammu & Kashmir is merely the most convenient excuse at the moment. But, in its absence, it won`t take long for Pakistan`s military to find yet another excuse.
But there is a limit to what the people will tolerate. And when the Kakul kleptocrats exhausted the patience of the long suffering ordinary citizens of Pakistan, the Tsunami of their wrath did not spare even the Ayub Khans and the Yahya Khans. It will not spare Pervez Musharraf either.
#48 Posted by arjun_m on February 28, 2003 11:34:30 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#47 Posted by pmishra2 on February 28, 2003 11:34:29 am
#28 tahmed
You may choose to fool yourself any way you like. If you consider Jinnah`s ``Direct Action Day`` a form of constitutional action, then you probably also consider Narendra Modi a great political theorist. To a honest person there is no difference between ``Gaurav Yatra`` and ``Direct Action``. Both fall in the category of mob violence for political ends.
Indeed, the tragedy with Jinnah was that inspite of education and high achievement he choose to utilize mob violence and mass killings to justify his political goals. At least with Sarvarkar we have the excuse of modest education and class.
Here are some descriptions of Jinnah`s ``constitutional`` acumen:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Action Dayà In August, Jinnah unleashed---perhaps inadvertently,
perhaps not---an ugly sample of the horrors to come. Opposed to a British
plan for Indian independence that did not also create Pakistan, he designated
the 18th day of Ramadan as ``Direct Action Day.`` ``Though direct,`` ``the action
was supposed to be peaceful. But before the disastrous day was over, blood
soaked the melting asphalt of sweltering Calcutta‘s streets.
The #Direct Action Day‘ that was celebrated by the Muslim League on August
16 touched off a chain reaction of violent explosions, which in the succeeding
12 months shook the country. On 16th August 1946, the #Direct Action Day‘
observed by the Muslim League, Calcutta witnessed a communal riot the scale
and intensity of which had never been known in living memory. For 4 days,
bands of hooligans armed with sticks, spears hatchets and even firearms
roamed the town robbing and killing at will. The #Great Calcutta Killing‘ took a
toll of more than 5000 lives besides the 15000 or more that were injured.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 16, 1946, in its demand for a separate Pakistan, the Muslim League called for ``Direct Action`` day. Direct Action day witnessed thousands of Muslims and Hindus fighting in mixed areas. Calcutta became the scene of the most brutal violence in what became known as the great `Calcutta killings`. Within 72 hours, more than 5,000 people died, at least 20,000 were seriously injured, and a hundred thousand residents of Calcutta City alone were left homeless. As Jinnah remarked ``If not a divided India, then a destroyed India``. More violence followed as the rioting spread to the rural areas of Punjab and the Ganges valley.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 16th August, the League marred proceedings by staging a Direct Action Day organizing rallies, demonstrations and processions. In Bengal a public holiday was declared, but attempts by Muslims to force Hindu shops to close soon led to an orgy of arson, looting and murder. Large numbers of troops were called in but rioting continued for four days and according to official estimates 5,000 people were killed, 15,000 injured and over 100,000 rendered homeless. Although Muslims were initially the aggressors both parties contributed equally to the destruction of Calcutta.
You may choose to fool yourself any way you like. If you consider Jinnah`s ``Direct Action Day`` a form of constitutional action, then you probably also consider Narendra Modi a great political theorist. To a honest person there is no difference between ``Gaurav Yatra`` and ``Direct Action``. Both fall in the category of mob violence for political ends.
Indeed, the tragedy with Jinnah was that inspite of education and high achievement he choose to utilize mob violence and mass killings to justify his political goals. At least with Sarvarkar we have the excuse of modest education and class.
Here are some descriptions of Jinnah`s ``constitutional`` acumen:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Action Dayà In August, Jinnah unleashed---perhaps inadvertently,
perhaps not---an ugly sample of the horrors to come. Opposed to a British
plan for Indian independence that did not also create Pakistan, he designated
the 18th day of Ramadan as ``Direct Action Day.`` ``Though direct,`` ``the action
was supposed to be peaceful. But before the disastrous day was over, blood
soaked the melting asphalt of sweltering Calcutta‘s streets.
The #Direct Action Day‘ that was celebrated by the Muslim League on August
16 touched off a chain reaction of violent explosions, which in the succeeding
12 months shook the country. On 16th August 1946, the #Direct Action Day‘
observed by the Muslim League, Calcutta witnessed a communal riot the scale
and intensity of which had never been known in living memory. For 4 days,
bands of hooligans armed with sticks, spears hatchets and even firearms
roamed the town robbing and killing at will. The #Great Calcutta Killing‘ took a
toll of more than 5000 lives besides the 15000 or more that were injured.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 16, 1946, in its demand for a separate Pakistan, the Muslim League called for ``Direct Action`` day. Direct Action day witnessed thousands of Muslims and Hindus fighting in mixed areas. Calcutta became the scene of the most brutal violence in what became known as the great `Calcutta killings`. Within 72 hours, more than 5,000 people died, at least 20,000 were seriously injured, and a hundred thousand residents of Calcutta City alone were left homeless. As Jinnah remarked ``If not a divided India, then a destroyed India``. More violence followed as the rioting spread to the rural areas of Punjab and the Ganges valley.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 16th August, the League marred proceedings by staging a Direct Action Day organizing rallies, demonstrations and processions. In Bengal a public holiday was declared, but attempts by Muslims to force Hindu shops to close soon led to an orgy of arson, looting and murder. Large numbers of troops were called in but rioting continued for four days and according to official estimates 5,000 people were killed, 15,000 injured and over 100,000 rendered homeless. Although Muslims were initially the aggressors both parties contributed equally to the destruction of Calcutta.
#46 Posted by sadna on February 28, 2003 11:34:29 am
pmishra2
Jinnah created Pakistan so that Muslims wouldnot need to complain about Hindus, he evidently didnot succeed, because even 57 years later, they are still singing maatams over the evil hindoos. I would think Jinnah imagined 57 years on, with their own country Pakistanis could devote their time to thinking about their own affairs, such as the state of their own Pakistani parliament, not the state of Indian secularism. I mean why Pakistan then?
One irony no Jinnah fanatic will acknowledge when talking of `constitutionalism` is that in India Jinnah is considered to be one of the founding fathers of the INDIAN Constitution :).
Anyway, the doublestandard you point out is very evident. sac I think said on another thread that the human brain requires nonveg. food to sustain it(perhaps he said its evolution required nonveg food). But what is very evident here is that some (now deceased) animals didnot eat their vegetables like their mommy told them to.
ahmadzai #29
I prefer to think of solutions, any solutions instead of eternal breastbeating :).
Re your observations about this thread, let me add, Pakistanis didnot believe in Indian secularism, thats why there is Pakistan. DUH. No need to restate it again and again `how many ways I hate you`, if you see what I mean.
btw, the question you have over the Hindu fundamentalist threat is exactly the question Hindutva-vadis raise about the Muslim fundamentalist threat, a question which they backup with instances from around the world and neighbourhood.
Jinnah created Pakistan so that Muslims wouldnot need to complain about Hindus, he evidently didnot succeed, because even 57 years later, they are still singing maatams over the evil hindoos. I would think Jinnah imagined 57 years on, with their own country Pakistanis could devote their time to thinking about their own affairs, such as the state of their own Pakistani parliament, not the state of Indian secularism. I mean why Pakistan then?
One irony no Jinnah fanatic will acknowledge when talking of `constitutionalism` is that in India Jinnah is considered to be one of the founding fathers of the INDIAN Constitution :).
Anyway, the doublestandard you point out is very evident. sac I think said on another thread that the human brain requires nonveg. food to sustain it(perhaps he said its evolution required nonveg food). But what is very evident here is that some (now deceased) animals didnot eat their vegetables like their mommy told them to.
ahmadzai #29
I prefer to think of solutions, any solutions instead of eternal breastbeating :).
Re your observations about this thread, let me add, Pakistanis didnot believe in Indian secularism, thats why there is Pakistan. DUH. No need to restate it again and again `how many ways I hate you`, if you see what I mean.
btw, the question you have over the Hindu fundamentalist threat is exactly the question Hindutva-vadis raise about the Muslim fundamentalist threat, a question which they backup with instances from around the world and neighbourhood.
#45 Posted by arjun_m on February 28, 2003 10:23:46 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#44 Posted by Tipu on February 28, 2003 9:55:18 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#43 Posted by YLH2 on February 28, 2003 9:55:18 am
AN APPEAL!
Mr. Mishra I strongly urge you not to resort the usual defaecation which is now SADLY your hallmark... the only thing it does (other than show us your ignorance) is convince me that only a thin veneer separates the self proclaimed secularist Indians (from the Majority community) from the saffron brigade which is a menace... besides I suspect you don`t really believe all that you say..
If indeed you are what you claim to be (though I strongly doubt it after your baseless accusations against me in the past) ... then at a time when we should be working together to save our respective countries from the menace of religious extremism .. we (followers of Jinnah and Gandhi) are indulging in the same kind of mistrust and suspicion that kept those two great South Asian leaders from coming together... your verbose monologues of hate against Pakistan notwithstanding, I am sure you realize how the likes of you have compromised peace in South Asia...
I ask you, much like my leader had asked your leader in 1920, to cry halt and stop yourself and your countrymen to stop before you lead us to an almost certain destruction and death... stop before it is too late, and all that is liberal and good about our countries is lost for ever!!!
But I fear that in this whirlpool of hate, you have gone far ahead...
Sincerely
Yasser
Mr. Mishra I strongly urge you not to resort the usual defaecation which is now SADLY your hallmark... the only thing it does (other than show us your ignorance) is convince me that only a thin veneer separates the self proclaimed secularist Indians (from the Majority community) from the saffron brigade which is a menace... besides I suspect you don`t really believe all that you say..
If indeed you are what you claim to be (though I strongly doubt it after your baseless accusations against me in the past) ... then at a time when we should be working together to save our respective countries from the menace of religious extremism .. we (followers of Jinnah and Gandhi) are indulging in the same kind of mistrust and suspicion that kept those two great South Asian leaders from coming together... your verbose monologues of hate against Pakistan notwithstanding, I am sure you realize how the likes of you have compromised peace in South Asia...
I ask you, much like my leader had asked your leader in 1920, to cry halt and stop yourself and your countrymen to stop before you lead us to an almost certain destruction and death... stop before it is too late, and all that is liberal and good about our countries is lost for ever!!!
But I fear that in this whirlpool of hate, you have gone far ahead...
Sincerely
Yasser
#42 Posted by YLH2 on February 28, 2003 9:55:18 am
tahmed`s #28... needs restatement :
``Jinnah`s means (like Nehru`s and others of the time) were firmly grounded in the British parliamentary tradition - i.e. you argue, you air your views, but you NEVER EVER resort to violence, nor do you demean communities of people. The means employed by Savarkar were the opposite - Godse (Gandhi`s convicted murderer) is known to have visited Savarkar`s house, and (as the WP article indicates), although that assasination could not (at least in many people`s mind) have taken place without Savarkar`s blessings. Also, Savarkar maligned muslims and christians (by declaring them guilty of not not looking towards India as their spiritual homeland). Finally, the followers of Savarkar (the JSS) continue to resort to violence and harassment of muslims and christians, whereas Jinnah`s legacy (the Muslim League) is generally recognized as a mainstream party. Savarkar`s equivalent was not Jinnah, but the maulvi extremists who first opposed Jinnah, and now are providing a hindutva equivalent vision for Pakistan that is directly competing with Jinnah`s vision of Pakistan.``
I, as a believer of Jinnah`s vision of Pakistan (a modern democratic pluralistic state) also realize that the greatest allies we have in this world are the true Gandhians across the borders (no matter what reservations I might have had in the past about Gandhi) and therefore once again I extend my hand of friendship to the self proclaimed Gandhians on this board... (but ofcourse once again I only expect to be snubbed, harrassed and abused)...
-YLH
``Jinnah`s means (like Nehru`s and others of the time) were firmly grounded in the British parliamentary tradition - i.e. you argue, you air your views, but you NEVER EVER resort to violence, nor do you demean communities of people. The means employed by Savarkar were the opposite - Godse (Gandhi`s convicted murderer) is known to have visited Savarkar`s house, and (as the WP article indicates), although that assasination could not (at least in many people`s mind) have taken place without Savarkar`s blessings. Also, Savarkar maligned muslims and christians (by declaring them guilty of not not looking towards India as their spiritual homeland). Finally, the followers of Savarkar (the JSS) continue to resort to violence and harassment of muslims and christians, whereas Jinnah`s legacy (the Muslim League) is generally recognized as a mainstream party. Savarkar`s equivalent was not Jinnah, but the maulvi extremists who first opposed Jinnah, and now are providing a hindutva equivalent vision for Pakistan that is directly competing with Jinnah`s vision of Pakistan.``
I, as a believer of Jinnah`s vision of Pakistan (a modern democratic pluralistic state) also realize that the greatest allies we have in this world are the true Gandhians across the borders (no matter what reservations I might have had in the past about Gandhi) and therefore once again I extend my hand of friendship to the self proclaimed Gandhians on this board... (but ofcourse once again I only expect to be snubbed, harrassed and abused)...
-YLH
#41 Posted by YLH2 on February 28, 2003 9:55:18 am
Has Sameerjb`s nick been hijacked by Jay? Because I have a strong feeling that it has been... He is no longer the balanced sane and rational Pakistani that I had come to admire for his realism...
Can someone update me on this development...
-YLH
Can someone update me on this development...
-YLH
#40 Posted by YLH2 on February 28, 2003 9:54:23 am
Who invented the Two nation theory ?
To the gentleman who oddly claims that Jinnah somehow invented the two nation theory... Jinnah (ironically the only politician in the history of South Asia to be called `Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity`) didn`t become convinced of the two nation theory untill 1939 ... and when he was convinced he saw it more of an unfortunate fact than an ideal situation hence his retraction after the creation of Pakistan. Iqbal, Rahmat Ali, Agha Khan 3 and Syed Ameer Ali had been talking of the two nation theory years ago.
In the Hindu community Savarkar had spoken of the two nation theory as early as 1923... an when he did, he didn`t speak of a right of self determination of his `MAJORITARIAN` community but as a tool to suppress the Muslim minority. In the Muslim Community the reformist and modernist Sir Syed Ahmed Khan had become convinced of the unfortunate Two Nation theory/fact as early as 1867... but even he was not the first one to speak of it... Chatterjee`s ``Anandmath`` and Ram Mohan Roy`s reformism all were various manifestations of this theory and preceded Jinnah by atleast 200 years..
These are the facts... but sadly the gentleman (if one can call him that) has a rather skewed view of history based on his self righteousness and some deep sense of insecurity... Hence instead of a constructive response one can only expect accusations of `sectarianism` and comparisons with Bal Thackerey from him... Ah well, when one comes across the likes of Qazi Hussain Ahmed, and Mullah Diesel in one`s own society, one learns to forgive people like P-Mishra for their obstinate bigotry. All one can do is counter their stinking farts of untruth with the air freshner of the truth!
Atleast people like Khushwant Singh are a breath of fresh air... atleast they have always called a spade for a spade, when it comes to matters pertaining to the partition of India. Thanks to providence there are many like him in India...
Long Live Jinnah`s Pakistan
Long Live Khushwant`s India
To the gentleman who oddly claims that Jinnah somehow invented the two nation theory... Jinnah (ironically the only politician in the history of South Asia to be called `Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity`) didn`t become convinced of the two nation theory untill 1939 ... and when he was convinced he saw it more of an unfortunate fact than an ideal situation hence his retraction after the creation of Pakistan. Iqbal, Rahmat Ali, Agha Khan 3 and Syed Ameer Ali had been talking of the two nation theory years ago.
In the Hindu community Savarkar had spoken of the two nation theory as early as 1923... an when he did, he didn`t speak of a right of self determination of his `MAJORITARIAN` community but as a tool to suppress the Muslim minority. In the Muslim Community the reformist and modernist Sir Syed Ahmed Khan had become convinced of the unfortunate Two Nation theory/fact as early as 1867... but even he was not the first one to speak of it... Chatterjee`s ``Anandmath`` and Ram Mohan Roy`s reformism all were various manifestations of this theory and preceded Jinnah by atleast 200 years..
These are the facts... but sadly the gentleman (if one can call him that) has a rather skewed view of history based on his self righteousness and some deep sense of insecurity... Hence instead of a constructive response one can only expect accusations of `sectarianism` and comparisons with Bal Thackerey from him... Ah well, when one comes across the likes of Qazi Hussain Ahmed, and Mullah Diesel in one`s own society, one learns to forgive people like P-Mishra for their obstinate bigotry. All one can do is counter their stinking farts of untruth with the air freshner of the truth!
Atleast people like Khushwant Singh are a breath of fresh air... atleast they have always called a spade for a spade, when it comes to matters pertaining to the partition of India. Thanks to providence there are many like him in India...
Long Live Jinnah`s Pakistan
Long Live Khushwant`s India
#39 Posted by umbertoeco on February 28, 2003 8:29:27 am
It is true that we keep discussing Indo-Pak or Hindu Muslim issues at Chowk. The reason is that we need to make sense out of the chaos, and discussions help in this regard.
No sane person will believe in the creation of another Pakistan. The Indian Muslims have rejected the TNT for good. That`s why we are in India. We live here and we will die here. The politicians always want to divide the people to run their shops. The Hindu Nazis are doing the same.
Hatred can never be won over by hatred. Love is the answer.
No sane person will believe in the creation of another Pakistan. The Indian Muslims have rejected the TNT for good. That`s why we are in India. We live here and we will die here. The politicians always want to divide the people to run their shops. The Hindu Nazis are doing the same.
Hatred can never be won over by hatred. Love is the answer.
#38 Posted by umbertoeco on February 28, 2003 8:29:27 am
It is true that we keep discussing Indo-Pak or Hindu Muslim issues at Chowk. The reason is that we need to make sense out of the chaos, and discussions help in this regard.
No sane person will believe in the creation of another Pakistan. The Indian Muslims have rejected the TNT for good. That`s why we are in India. We live here and we will die here. The politicians always want to divide the people to run their shops. The Hindu Nazis are doing the same.
Zafar
Hatred can never be won over by hatred. Love is the answer.
No sane person will believe in the creation of another Pakistan. The Indian Muslims have rejected the TNT for good. That`s why we are in India. We live here and we will die here. The politicians always want to divide the people to run their shops. The Hindu Nazis are doing the same.
Zafar
Hatred can never be won over by hatred. Love is the answer.
#37 Posted by jay on February 28, 2003 8:29:27 am
Hindus to pray at Bhojshala on Tuesdays, Muslims on Fridays
- -
Bhopal: The Centre has allowed Hindus to worship at the controversial Bhojshala-Kamaal Maula mosque in Dhar on Tuesdays while Muslims would continue to offer Friday prayers as suggested by the Madhya Pradesh government, Chief Minister Digvijay Singh said here on Thursday. Singh said he had receieved a letter to this effect from Union Culture and Tourism minister Jagmohan on Wednesday allowing the Hindus to pay obeisance at the Wagdevi temple for the whole day on Tuesdays and carry rice and flowers as prayer offerings.
Singh said this was in modification of his government`s recommendations suggesting that Hindus worship for two hours on Tuesdays and not carry any pooja material inside the ASI-protected shrine. The Muslims will continue to offer namaz at the adjacent mosque on Fridays. On other days the shrine would be open to public as a tourist spot for a token entry fee.
The chief minister said the letter from the Centre had been forwarded to the Dhar district administration for making arrangements accordingly. The recommendations for holding prayers had come to the state government from the Dhar district administration after an all-party meeting held in Dhar on February 19 last.
/////There is a similar arrangement in pakistan also, the sunnis goe to shia mosques ( sorry that word is not allowed for the ahmadias asw well) on one friday and the shias goe to the sunni ,osques the next, of course armed with Ak47s, one funded by the ISI and the other by the iranians. Perfect model for the great vision of a two nation theory.
- -
Bhopal: The Centre has allowed Hindus to worship at the controversial Bhojshala-Kamaal Maula mosque in Dhar on Tuesdays while Muslims would continue to offer Friday prayers as suggested by the Madhya Pradesh government, Chief Minister Digvijay Singh said here on Thursday. Singh said he had receieved a letter to this effect from Union Culture and Tourism minister Jagmohan on Wednesday allowing the Hindus to pay obeisance at the Wagdevi temple for the whole day on Tuesdays and carry rice and flowers as prayer offerings.
Singh said this was in modification of his government`s recommendations suggesting that Hindus worship for two hours on Tuesdays and not carry any pooja material inside the ASI-protected shrine. The Muslims will continue to offer namaz at the adjacent mosque on Fridays. On other days the shrine would be open to public as a tourist spot for a token entry fee.
The chief minister said the letter from the Centre had been forwarded to the Dhar district administration for making arrangements accordingly. The recommendations for holding prayers had come to the state government from the Dhar district administration after an all-party meeting held in Dhar on February 19 last.
/////There is a similar arrangement in pakistan also, the sunnis goe to shia mosques ( sorry that word is not allowed for the ahmadias asw well) on one friday and the shias goe to the sunni ,osques the next, of course armed with Ak47s, one funded by the ISI and the other by the iranians. Perfect model for the great vision of a two nation theory.
#36 Posted by veeresh on February 28, 2003 8:28:31 am
I say Hamid-M #20 . . . that was truly not honest an oxymoron or two . . . ``I like them less than I like `orrible `indoos`` . . . I am now digging out that slide-rule hidden somewhere and am going to try to figure out what that means . . . and yes, that red paste is nothing but colour thrown on to foul things, somehow that red paste has now found its way on to simple tandoori food also which is sad, no?
Also, Hamid-m, don`t knock the wide wide range of non-veg (Hindu?) dosas & idlis currently ruling the planet, at a subcontinent near you . . . they may be called by other names like ``Ceylon Paratha``, ``keema newspaper`` (this is really really cool), ``Chinese dosa`` . . . and my favourite ``Egg-gosht hoppers``.
I got a strong feeling that if somebody had the brains to start a non-veg Chettiyar cum Malwani food restaurant, use meats not usually found in India, then call it something like ``Ye Olde Malabari Moplah via Zanzibar Revenge`` in Pakistan then that somebody would make a big BIG sum of money. (In dollars?)
Much better then this business of Muslim leadership as far as being a commercial proposition goes. Look at Rooh-Afza or Jhandu Balm, I tell you!!
Also, Hamid-m, don`t knock the wide wide range of non-veg (Hindu?) dosas & idlis currently ruling the planet, at a subcontinent near you . . . they may be called by other names like ``Ceylon Paratha``, ``keema newspaper`` (this is really really cool), ``Chinese dosa`` . . . and my favourite ``Egg-gosht hoppers``.
I got a strong feeling that if somebody had the brains to start a non-veg Chettiyar cum Malwani food restaurant, use meats not usually found in India, then call it something like ``Ye Olde Malabari Moplah via Zanzibar Revenge`` in Pakistan then that somebody would make a big BIG sum of money. (In dollars?)
Much better then this business of Muslim leadership as far as being a commercial proposition goes. Look at Rooh-Afza or Jhandu Balm, I tell you!!
#35 Posted by Sobia on February 28, 2003 8:28:31 am
re # 27 nazarhayatkhan
There`s no point in wishing these hate-mongers would go away. I think most of them don`t have very `happening` lives in any case so all they do every day, day in and day out, is write hate messages to each other. Maybe it makes them feel full-filled, satisfied, superior..I don`t know...but whatever it is, it won`t go away, so don`t even bother asking them to talk about ``flowers, rainbows and love.`` This hate talk, unfortunately, has become a regular feature of Chowk, where people resort to insults instead of rationally talking about the real issues and problems.
There`s no point in wishing these hate-mongers would go away. I think most of them don`t have very `happening` lives in any case so all they do every day, day in and day out, is write hate messages to each other. Maybe it makes them feel full-filled, satisfied, superior..I don`t know...but whatever it is, it won`t go away, so don`t even bother asking them to talk about ``flowers, rainbows and love.`` This hate talk, unfortunately, has become a regular feature of Chowk, where people resort to insults instead of rationally talking about the real issues and problems.
#34 Posted by Ahmadzai on February 28, 2003 8:28:30 am
Sadna at # 19:
LOL, except for the last para.
Your last para is a bit emotionally written.
I will say this with great deal of conviction that here on Chowk, our posts get abnormally hateful due to posters from opposing views. General belief in Pakistan is that the Muslims of India will fare well by assimilating themselves into India economically, but not at the cost of their religious identity. That is why I liked some of the suggestions given to Indian Muslims by the writer. I am also positive that Indian Muslims are generally quite happy being just that, except that they do express their concerns at anti-Muslim hate being created by Indian leadership as evident from Gujrat.
However, I still have my strong concernes in a long term perspective, if the seculars of India are not able to check the current wave of fundamentalism.
This is a well written article.
LOL, except for the last para.
Your last para is a bit emotionally written.
I will say this with great deal of conviction that here on Chowk, our posts get abnormally hateful due to posters from opposing views. General belief in Pakistan is that the Muslims of India will fare well by assimilating themselves into India economically, but not at the cost of their religious identity. That is why I liked some of the suggestions given to Indian Muslims by the writer. I am also positive that Indian Muslims are generally quite happy being just that, except that they do express their concerns at anti-Muslim hate being created by Indian leadership as evident from Gujrat.
However, I still have my strong concernes in a long term perspective, if the seculars of India are not able to check the current wave of fundamentalism.
This is a well written article.
#33 Posted by Humsab on February 28, 2003 8:28:30 am
Hamidm ji
Sach sach bataye, Aapki biwi Hyderabadi hai? Aapki knowledge South Indian khaane ke baare maiN normal se kuchh zayada hai.
Keep posting your pearls of wisdom.
Regards
Sach sach bataye, Aapki biwi Hyderabadi hai? Aapki knowledge South Indian khaane ke baare maiN normal se kuchh zayada hai.
Keep posting your pearls of wisdom.
Regards
#32 Posted by m_souza on February 28, 2003 8:28:30 am
to Nasah and other Indian muslims
Don`t feel bad about what these silly pakis write about Indian muslims or abt Hydrabadi language or aboutt dosa-idli. Mmmmm don`t we Indians love dosa idli as well as paraantha.
It is our India..man..great India...where Mohd Kaif and Zaheer khan are adored as much by the public as Harbhajan singh and Tendulkar or Dravid. Where Hindu Prime minister utterly respects and consults the Muslim President in his day to day work
What do Pakis know about the joy of multiculturalism...the vastness and variety of Indian food, languages and culture.
They formed their pure land based on one religion, one language and one kind of food. They shun any variety in life, have no respect for anything that looks, tastes or speaks different from their set Paki standard.
We Hindus are with Indian muslims and cannot let anyone insult you whether you are from Hydrabad or Lucknow or elsewhere..we are all Indians first. We might have had troubles which is rather sad but I am sure we will sort out things and be closer than ever, uniting India further, this is what an average Hindu wants.
Don`t feel bad about what these silly pakis write about Indian muslims or abt Hydrabadi language or aboutt dosa-idli. Mmmmm don`t we Indians love dosa idli as well as paraantha.
It is our India..man..great India...where Mohd Kaif and Zaheer khan are adored as much by the public as Harbhajan singh and Tendulkar or Dravid. Where Hindu Prime minister utterly respects and consults the Muslim President in his day to day work
What do Pakis know about the joy of multiculturalism...the vastness and variety of Indian food, languages and culture.
They formed their pure land based on one religion, one language and one kind of food. They shun any variety in life, have no respect for anything that looks, tastes or speaks different from their set Paki standard.
We Hindus are with Indian muslims and cannot let anyone insult you whether you are from Hydrabad or Lucknow or elsewhere..we are all Indians first. We might have had troubles which is rather sad but I am sure we will sort out things and be closer than ever, uniting India further, this is what an average Hindu wants.
#31 Posted by Faruk on February 28, 2003 8:28:30 am
Zafar,
Nice article. I think the shahbano verdict was a good verdict and it should never have been overturned. It was a big mistake, the moderate Muslims should have taken on the fundoos at that time. As a community Indian Muslims have to stop tolerating the hardliners. The best approach to dealing with BJP/VHP is by opening up more as a community.
Regards,
Faruk
Nice article. I think the shahbano verdict was a good verdict and it should never have been overturned. It was a big mistake, the moderate Muslims should have taken on the fundoos at that time. As a community Indian Muslims have to stop tolerating the hardliners. The best approach to dealing with BJP/VHP is by opening up more as a community.
Regards,
Faruk
#30 Posted by Faruk on February 28, 2003 8:28:30 am
Veeresh # 22
The people who claim to represent the Muslim community in India were never elected, we get a bad press. The press likes a bunch of freaks and what we have is tabloid journalism at best. There is no muslim leadership in India and I don`t there should be. Just good Indian Leadership.
Regards,
Faruk.
The people who claim to represent the Muslim community in India were never elected, we get a bad press. The press likes a bunch of freaks and what we have is tabloid journalism at best. There is no muslim leadership in India and I don`t there should be. Just good Indian Leadership.
Regards,
Faruk.
#29 Posted by sadna on February 28, 2003 8:28:30 am
This is a worthwhile read:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2003022801381000.htm
Freedom and secularism
By Pratap Bhanu Mehta
The proper antidote to majoritarian politics is the cultivation of a love of individual freedom that rejects the thought that any community, majority or minority, can define the identities and circumscribe the possibilities of any of the individuals that compose it.
ONE OF the more revealing oddities in the Indian debate over secularism is that a defence of individual freedom rarely figures prominently in defences of secularism. While many different conceptions of secularism dot our political landscape, none of them makes individual freedom explicitly a political value. For some, secularism is simply synonymous with communal harmony: the peaceful and possibly respectful coexistence of different religious groups. For others, secularism is a view about the state`s relationship with religion. All secularists agree that the state should, in some sense, be impartial amongst different religions. But some take the view that the best expression of this impartiality is that the state, as far as possible, disentangles itself from all religious arguments and identities. Others argue that this impartiality is best expressed by equal treatment of all religions, but that this equal treatment does not necessarily require the state to distance itself from religion. For still others, the debate over secularism is largely a debate over the asymmetric authority the state exercises over different religions. Does it have the authority to interfere with the practices of some communities but not with the practices of others? But whatever the nuances of these positions, none of them seems to give individual liberty its due moral weight.
Few articulations of secularism are directly concerned with the value of individual liberty. Those who advocate the disentanglement of the state from religion as far as is possible are clearly motivated by a concern for freedom. They believe, rightly, that the coercive power of the state should not be used to advance the cause of any religion; that such use of coercive power violates fundamental freedoms because it forces adherents of other religions to go along with practices that they have, given their beliefs, no reason to go along with. But mere disentanglement cannot avoid the thorny problem that historically religious communities can exercise coercive power over its members as well. These communities can deny their members basic freedom and equality and the state will have to massively intervene in ``religious`` practices to ensure that freedom and equality are enjoyed by all individuals. Principled distance is never an option for any state interested in securing the rights of its citizens, sometimes against the traditions of particular religious communities. The principled distance metaphor is misleading insofar as it suggests that the state can lay its hands off religion. But the state should be principled all right. It is justified intervening only insofar as these interventions secure the conditions of individual liberty and equality.
The other versions of secularism, secularism as communal harmony, secularism as respect for all religions and secularism as a project for giving different groups their own space to collectively define their identities are even less motivated by a concern for individual liberty. Of course they are motivated by other high ideals: peace, sometimes solicitude for pluralism, sometimes a genuine piety towards the diversity of our society. But none of them makes freedom a central value. These invocations of secularism are quite compatible with many sentiments that ought to worry those who care about freedom. These versions of secularism are not averse to using state power to advance religious ends provided some kind of parity between different communities is maintained. So, on this view, it is all right for the state to ban practices offensive to Hindus so long as it does the same for Muslims and so forth. So long as the state demonstrates equal treatment for communities secularism stands vindicated. But casting secularism in terms of communal parity is itself misleading. The parity model produced an untenable politics. Governments established their secular credentials by giving one concession to a particular religious community and then offset it by granting concessions to other communities in a process of competitive bidding that left all communities feeling that they had lost. The charge of pseudo-secularism is essentially a charge framed within the discourse of the parity model, and all attempts to answer the charges of pseudo-secularism simply reinforce the dominance of this model. This parity model was suffocating insofar as it put respecting religion or collective identities above the cause of protecting individual freedoms. It is disingenuous in minimising the potential conflict between established religions and individual liberty, and it rests on the illusion that all religions are essentially harmonious with each other so that respecting all of them is indeed possible. To say that the state should use its coercive powers to express ``respect`` towards all religions equally is by no stretch of the imagination the same thing as saying that each individual ought to have as much freedom as is compatible with a similar freedom for others.
In the whole thicket of issues that are wrecking secularism, from the debate over conversion to cow slaughter, very few protagonists stake the simple and obvious claim: each individual has as much liberty as is compatible with a similar liberty for others. This claim has three large implications for secularism. First, secularism is not about respecting this or that religion and granting them due recognition. It is about giving individuals the freedom to realise themselves in whatever way they choose to do so, in whatever religion or without religion at all. The state is not in the business of saving anyone`s soul; it is not in the business of advancing any particular religious conception or conceptions. Its primary function, other than securing security and a minimum of well being for all citizens, is protecting their liberty as individuals.
Second, the state has an obligation to ensure that this freedom is secured for all individuals, sometimes even against the prohibitions that religious communities impose upon them. Third and most importantly, no majority can override the basic rights of individuals, not matter how strong their sentiments. When the state uses the sentiments of the majority as an argument to impose restrictions on what people may think, what they may eat and so forth, it violates the fundamental tenets of freedom.
Freedom is admittedly a complex notion, but making it basic has certain advantages. It better defines the goals of our collective arrangements. Our collective project is to create a free society, where only those interdictions on freedom can be justified that serve the cause of freedom itself, not the cause of this or that community. Second, taking freedom seriously does not require us to make contorted distinctions between the secular and the sacred; it does not enjoin us to view our identities or our histories in any particular way. All it requires is a commitment to the idea of freedom itself, the freedom to define ourselves in whatever way we please, the freedom to think our own thoughts, secure in the belief that no collectivity, however deep its sentiments, can violate the rights of individuals. The proper antidote to majoritarian politics is the cultivation of a love of individual freedom that rejects the thought that any community, majority or minority, can define the identities and circumscribe the possibilities of any of the individuals that compose it. True, swaraj can flourish only when each of us, as individuals, is given the conditions to realise ourselves in whatever way we choose to do so. Genuine diversity can flourish only where there is a love of individual freedom. It is a pity that liberty no longer appears to be our primary political passion.
(The writer is Professor of Philosophy and of Law and Governance, JNU.)
http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2003022801381000.htm
Freedom and secularism
By Pratap Bhanu Mehta
The proper antidote to majoritarian politics is the cultivation of a love of individual freedom that rejects the thought that any community, majority or minority, can define the identities and circumscribe the possibilities of any of the individuals that compose it.
ONE OF the more revealing oddities in the Indian debate over secularism is that a defence of individual freedom rarely figures prominently in defences of secularism. While many different conceptions of secularism dot our political landscape, none of them makes individual freedom explicitly a political value. For some, secularism is simply synonymous with communal harmony: the peaceful and possibly respectful coexistence of different religious groups. For others, secularism is a view about the state`s relationship with religion. All secularists agree that the state should, in some sense, be impartial amongst different religions. But some take the view that the best expression of this impartiality is that the state, as far as possible, disentangles itself from all religious arguments and identities. Others argue that this impartiality is best expressed by equal treatment of all religions, but that this equal treatment does not necessarily require the state to distance itself from religion. For still others, the debate over secularism is largely a debate over the asymmetric authority the state exercises over different religions. Does it have the authority to interfere with the practices of some communities but not with the practices of others? But whatever the nuances of these positions, none of them seems to give individual liberty its due moral weight.
Few articulations of secularism are directly concerned with the value of individual liberty. Those who advocate the disentanglement of the state from religion as far as is possible are clearly motivated by a concern for freedom. They believe, rightly, that the coercive power of the state should not be used to advance the cause of any religion; that such use of coercive power violates fundamental freedoms because it forces adherents of other religions to go along with practices that they have, given their beliefs, no reason to go along with. But mere disentanglement cannot avoid the thorny problem that historically religious communities can exercise coercive power over its members as well. These communities can deny their members basic freedom and equality and the state will have to massively intervene in ``religious`` practices to ensure that freedom and equality are enjoyed by all individuals. Principled distance is never an option for any state interested in securing the rights of its citizens, sometimes against the traditions of particular religious communities. The principled distance metaphor is misleading insofar as it suggests that the state can lay its hands off religion. But the state should be principled all right. It is justified intervening only insofar as these interventions secure the conditions of individual liberty and equality.
The other versions of secularism, secularism as communal harmony, secularism as respect for all religions and secularism as a project for giving different groups their own space to collectively define their identities are even less motivated by a concern for individual liberty. Of course they are motivated by other high ideals: peace, sometimes solicitude for pluralism, sometimes a genuine piety towards the diversity of our society. But none of them makes freedom a central value. These invocations of secularism are quite compatible with many sentiments that ought to worry those who care about freedom. These versions of secularism are not averse to using state power to advance religious ends provided some kind of parity between different communities is maintained. So, on this view, it is all right for the state to ban practices offensive to Hindus so long as it does the same for Muslims and so forth. So long as the state demonstrates equal treatment for communities secularism stands vindicated. But casting secularism in terms of communal parity is itself misleading. The parity model produced an untenable politics. Governments established their secular credentials by giving one concession to a particular religious community and then offset it by granting concessions to other communities in a process of competitive bidding that left all communities feeling that they had lost. The charge of pseudo-secularism is essentially a charge framed within the discourse of the parity model, and all attempts to answer the charges of pseudo-secularism simply reinforce the dominance of this model. This parity model was suffocating insofar as it put respecting religion or collective identities above the cause of protecting individual freedoms. It is disingenuous in minimising the potential conflict between established religions and individual liberty, and it rests on the illusion that all religions are essentially harmonious with each other so that respecting all of them is indeed possible. To say that the state should use its coercive powers to express ``respect`` towards all religions equally is by no stretch of the imagination the same thing as saying that each individual ought to have as much freedom as is compatible with a similar freedom for others.
In the whole thicket of issues that are wrecking secularism, from the debate over conversion to cow slaughter, very few protagonists stake the simple and obvious claim: each individual has as much liberty as is compatible with a similar liberty for others. This claim has three large implications for secularism. First, secularism is not about respecting this or that religion and granting them due recognition. It is about giving individuals the freedom to realise themselves in whatever way they choose to do so, in whatever religion or without religion at all. The state is not in the business of saving anyone`s soul; it is not in the business of advancing any particular religious conception or conceptions. Its primary function, other than securing security and a minimum of well being for all citizens, is protecting their liberty as individuals.
Second, the state has an obligation to ensure that this freedom is secured for all individuals, sometimes even against the prohibitions that religious communities impose upon them. Third and most importantly, no majority can override the basic rights of individuals, not matter how strong their sentiments. When the state uses the sentiments of the majority as an argument to impose restrictions on what people may think, what they may eat and so forth, it violates the fundamental tenets of freedom.
Freedom is admittedly a complex notion, but making it basic has certain advantages. It better defines the goals of our collective arrangements. Our collective project is to create a free society, where only those interdictions on freedom can be justified that serve the cause of freedom itself, not the cause of this or that community. Second, taking freedom seriously does not require us to make contorted distinctions between the secular and the sacred; it does not enjoin us to view our identities or our histories in any particular way. All it requires is a commitment to the idea of freedom itself, the freedom to define ourselves in whatever way we please, the freedom to think our own thoughts, secure in the belief that no collectivity, however deep its sentiments, can violate the rights of individuals. The proper antidote to majoritarian politics is the cultivation of a love of individual freedom that rejects the thought that any community, majority or minority, can define the identities and circumscribe the possibilities of any of the individuals that compose it. True, swaraj can flourish only when each of us, as individuals, is given the conditions to realise ourselves in whatever way we choose to do so. Genuine diversity can flourish only where there is a love of individual freedom. It is a pity that liberty no longer appears to be our primary political passion.
(The writer is Professor of Philosophy and of Law and Governance, JNU.)
#28 Posted by tahmed32 on February 28, 2003 8:28:29 am
pmishra #21 you write ``Could you please explain why Savarkar is a bad guy and Jinnah is a good guy? The two together invented the TNT which lies at the heart of the Pakistan concept. ``
Excellent question. Here is my view on this: they differ on the MEANS they sought.
Jinnah`s means (like Nehru`s and others of the time) were firmly grounded in the British parliamentary tradition - i.e. you argue, you air your views, but you NEVER EVER resort to violence, nor do you demean communities of people.
The means employed by Savarkar were the opposite - Godse (Gandhi`s convicted murderer) is known to have visited Savarkar`s house, and (as the WP article indicates), although that assasination could not (at least in many people`s mind) have taken place without Savarkar`s blessings. Also, Savarkar maligned muslims and christians (by declaring them guilty of not not looking towards India as their spiritual homeland). Finally, the followers of Savarkar (the JSS) continue to resort to violence and harassment of muslims and christians, whereas Jinnah`s legacy (the Muslim League) is generally recognized as a mainstream party. Savarkar`s equivalent was not Jinnah, but the maulvi extremists who first opposed Jinnah, and now are providing a hindutva equivalent vision for Pakistan that is directly competing with Jinnah`s vision of Pakistan.
I do agree with you in that both had similar ends, but here again: When Jinnah started his political career, he came to be known as the ``Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity``. Without getting into the events and attitudes (of which Savarkar and JSS provide an extreme example), I think it is correct to say that it takes two to tango, and divorce is never a black and white affair (except in the eyes of the two individuals concerned).
Sadly, fifty years after the British left, politics in the subcontinent have steadily moved South - into greater extremism, greater violence. As I wrote earlier - the dream of a peace and goodwill and social progress in the subcontinent seems to move further away with each passing year. Economic progress without accompanying progress in civil conduct of politics is I think a recipe for disaster. I just hope that we dont learn this lesson the hard way (like the Japanese and Germans did).
harimou: You had a similar question I think, and I had provided a similar answer but looks like it did not make it properly to chowk. All that I see of it is a heading with my name on it on post #18 and no text. I hope therefore that you will consider the above to be a response to your question as well.
Excellent question. Here is my view on this: they differ on the MEANS they sought.
Jinnah`s means (like Nehru`s and others of the time) were firmly grounded in the British parliamentary tradition - i.e. you argue, you air your views, but you NEVER EVER resort to violence, nor do you demean communities of people.
The means employed by Savarkar were the opposite - Godse (Gandhi`s convicted murderer) is known to have visited Savarkar`s house, and (as the WP article indicates), although that assasination could not (at least in many people`s mind) have taken place without Savarkar`s blessings. Also, Savarkar maligned muslims and christians (by declaring them guilty of not not looking towards India as their spiritual homeland). Finally, the followers of Savarkar (the JSS) continue to resort to violence and harassment of muslims and christians, whereas Jinnah`s legacy (the Muslim League) is generally recognized as a mainstream party. Savarkar`s equivalent was not Jinnah, but the maulvi extremists who first opposed Jinnah, and now are providing a hindutva equivalent vision for Pakistan that is directly competing with Jinnah`s vision of Pakistan.
I do agree with you in that both had similar ends, but here again: When Jinnah started his political career, he came to be known as the ``Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity``. Without getting into the events and attitudes (of which Savarkar and JSS provide an extreme example), I think it is correct to say that it takes two to tango, and divorce is never a black and white affair (except in the eyes of the two individuals concerned).
Sadly, fifty years after the British left, politics in the subcontinent have steadily moved South - into greater extremism, greater violence. As I wrote earlier - the dream of a peace and goodwill and social progress in the subcontinent seems to move further away with each passing year. Economic progress without accompanying progress in civil conduct of politics is I think a recipe for disaster. I just hope that we dont learn this lesson the hard way (like the Japanese and Germans did).
harimou: You had a similar question I think, and I had provided a similar answer but looks like it did not make it properly to chowk. All that I see of it is a heading with my name on it on post #18 and no text. I hope therefore that you will consider the above to be a response to your question as well.
#27 Posted by nazarhayatkhan on February 27, 2003 9:21:02 pm
Zafar
It seems that a lot of hate is floating around. India-Pakistan & Hindue-Muslim seems to be the favourite topic of Chowk. And we have made Qeema (ground beef) of this issue. Lets also talk about flowers, rainbows and love.
It is all politics. India needs an enemy Pakistan to stay united. Pakistan needs an enemy India to justify its creation.
Whereas, the best option may be:
To have a South-Asian Union like EU
Let Kashmir stay where it is and as it is
and lets go togather into a golden peaceful future.
#26 Posted by nasah on February 27, 2003 8:40:51 pm
“”as far as i am concerned, most indian muslims are a bunch of fundamentalists who are constantly turning up their silly noses at the pakis for not being ``good`` muslims and accusing us of letting our women run loose”(hamidm2)
are u sure? – I thought it was the other way around– with those gracious Lashkariyas:-
“on top of that, they eat dosas…. that would make your stomach turn”
– ah those dicey, daring, delicious dosas! – it’s surely not for the sissy stomachs --
surely not for those who love to grind their worn out teeth – on the horses favorite grain: the chickpeas choleys!!
now i feel better...
are u sure? – I thought it was the other way around– with those gracious Lashkariyas:-
“on top of that, they eat dosas…. that would make your stomach turn”
– ah those dicey, daring, delicious dosas! – it’s surely not for the sissy stomachs --
surely not for those who love to grind their worn out teeth – on the horses favorite grain: the chickpeas choleys!!
now i feel better...
#25 Posted by rsridhar on February 27, 2003 8:40:05 pm
re:#2 by Urstruly
``I see another Pakistan emerging from the womb of Hindustan.``
I see INS knocking at your doors soon and you being shipped to Guantama Bay. How about that?
What are you? Some idiotic psychic hallucinating on opium? Talk some sense, man. Talk logically. What is wrong with some of you Pakis?
Pakistan happened because of weak kneed approach of Indian Congress in 1947. It was unable to convince some muslims that they are safe in India. Their pseudo-secularism has ensured the rise of BJP and Sangh Parivar as a potent political force in the recent past.
We live in a different age. If Indian muslims have not learned to forge a working relationship with Hindus, they need to figure out how to go about doing that. Nobody in India is talking of another Pakistan. The very word is dreaded by Indian muslims. They know the consequences. They are living with the consequences of one partition. They would be insane to demand another.
If i were a Pakistani, i would worry about Sindhi movement, Baluchi aspirations, Pakhtoon problem and increasing fundamentalism creeping into Paki society.
So, relax. Even if you wish Indian muslims would rise in rebellion and demand another Pakistan, it is not going to happen.
Sridhar
``I see another Pakistan emerging from the womb of Hindustan.``
I see INS knocking at your doors soon and you being shipped to Guantama Bay. How about that?
What are you? Some idiotic psychic hallucinating on opium? Talk some sense, man. Talk logically. What is wrong with some of you Pakis?
Pakistan happened because of weak kneed approach of Indian Congress in 1947. It was unable to convince some muslims that they are safe in India. Their pseudo-secularism has ensured the rise of BJP and Sangh Parivar as a potent political force in the recent past.
We live in a different age. If Indian muslims have not learned to forge a working relationship with Hindus, they need to figure out how to go about doing that. Nobody in India is talking of another Pakistan. The very word is dreaded by Indian muslims. They know the consequences. They are living with the consequences of one partition. They would be insane to demand another.
If i were a Pakistani, i would worry about Sindhi movement, Baluchi aspirations, Pakhtoon problem and increasing fundamentalism creeping into Paki society.
So, relax. Even if you wish Indian muslims would rise in rebellion and demand another Pakistan, it is not going to happen.
Sridhar
#24 Posted by rsridhar on February 27, 2003 8:40:05 pm
re: Ursfalsely #5
``In my opinion, from now on an armed conflict is not possible - the most they can do is to amass their army at our borders like they did last year and kept it there for a year.``
Read the following Url:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_27-2-2003_pg7_7
Excerpts:
``The minister was told that Indian patience with Pakistan was wearing thin and while Washington had continued to restrain India, it could not do so indefinitely if the present Pakistani policy continued.``
The minister above refers to Kasuri, who was in Washington recently. Figure out what the above statement means and let me know. Obviously, the political leadership in Washington had applied tremendous pressure on India not to go to war with Pakistan. India did the next best and mobilised a huge force next to the border. This may not happen everytime. You may expect war in future if there is another attack like the one on Indian Parliament and India is preparing well for that.
Sridhar
``Hindu religious nuts who are currently ruling India are crazy but definitely not stupid.``
Yes. The guy who came to Pakistan and lahore and extended his hand of friendship was a nut. Yes, the same guy who invited a whore called Musharraf to Agra for peace is a nutcase.
``In my opinion, from now on an armed conflict is not possible - the most they can do is to amass their army at our borders like they did last year and kept it there for a year.``
Read the following Url:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_27-2-2003_pg7_7
Excerpts:
``The minister was told that Indian patience with Pakistan was wearing thin and while Washington had continued to restrain India, it could not do so indefinitely if the present Pakistani policy continued.``
The minister above refers to Kasuri, who was in Washington recently. Figure out what the above statement means and let me know. Obviously, the political leadership in Washington had applied tremendous pressure on India not to go to war with Pakistan. India did the next best and mobilised a huge force next to the border. This may not happen everytime. You may expect war in future if there is another attack like the one on Indian Parliament and India is preparing well for that.
Sridhar
``Hindu religious nuts who are currently ruling India are crazy but definitely not stupid.``
Yes. The guy who came to Pakistan and lahore and extended his hand of friendship was a nut. Yes, the same guy who invited a whore called Musharraf to Agra for peace is a nutcase.
#23 Posted by veeresh on February 27, 2003 8:40:04 pm
The Mulsim ``leadership`` in India, to my knowledge, walks up to Muslim looking middle aged males (bearded, swarthy, wearing pathan suits . . .) and says ``qaum khatre mein hai`` or something like that. Further conversation then depends on response. I have had great fun here.
The Muslim ``leadership`` in India, to my knowledge, will sell its soul as well as nether orifices to the Arabs for visas for labour. Lately extended to recruiting software professionals for service in the fatherland, too.
The Muslim ``leadership`` in India, to my knowledge, will kill competing younger and more visionary Muslims, especially when it comes to Hajj Committees and Wakf Boards, also rentals around mosques.
The Muslims ``leadership`` in India, to my knowledge, will break bread and wine and more with the Hindu ``leadership`` and then make joint plans on how to keep their flocks rooted in ignorance. It is not strange to see Muslim fundoos and Hindu fundos living in the same geographical areas.
The Muslim leadership in India sucks big time, worse than the Hindu leadership, for one simple reason:- they really really terribly mess with women`s rights, and that is 50% of the population gone economically and otherwise under.
But then, the open secret known to all in India is that it is so easy for the Muslim ``leadership`` to blame others, especially Hindus, right?
The Muslim ``leadership`` in India, to my knowledge, will sell its soul as well as nether orifices to the Arabs for visas for labour. Lately extended to recruiting software professionals for service in the fatherland, too.
The Muslim ``leadership`` in India, to my knowledge, will kill competing younger and more visionary Muslims, especially when it comes to Hajj Committees and Wakf Boards, also rentals around mosques.
The Muslims ``leadership`` in India, to my knowledge, will break bread and wine and more with the Hindu ``leadership`` and then make joint plans on how to keep their flocks rooted in ignorance. It is not strange to see Muslim fundoos and Hindu fundos living in the same geographical areas.
The Muslim leadership in India sucks big time, worse than the Hindu leadership, for one simple reason:- they really really terribly mess with women`s rights, and that is 50% of the population gone economically and otherwise under.
But then, the open secret known to all in India is that it is so easy for the Muslim ``leadership`` to blame others, especially Hindus, right?
#22 Posted by ferozk on February 27, 2003 8:40:04 pm
Re: Zafar Anjum
I have always said that hate between Hindus and Muslims is reciprocal. Hate begets hate and hate justifies communal violence, be it in India or Pakistan. There is no tolerance in either India or Pakistan and both Indians and Pakistanis have more in common, including their hatred for each other, than they have differences with one other.
One only has to look at the face of hate and hatred to realize, what it really is, otherwise it is just an abstract word without any empathy. It is very easy to hate and to condone hatred, but it is not easy to foreswear hatred as a weapon of moral and intellectual paralysis. Hate come from within us and is the handiwork of the evil, which lurks in our hearts, because hate is a human emotion created to appease human weaknesses. Hate and the recourse to hate justifies everthing, but it never promises to be a solution and those those who propagate its message and distribute its intent, are really afraid to challenge their own insecurities.
Ciao
I have always said that hate between Hindus and Muslims is reciprocal. Hate begets hate and hate justifies communal violence, be it in India or Pakistan. There is no tolerance in either India or Pakistan and both Indians and Pakistanis have more in common, including their hatred for each other, than they have differences with one other.
One only has to look at the face of hate and hatred to realize, what it really is, otherwise it is just an abstract word without any empathy. It is very easy to hate and to condone hatred, but it is not easy to foreswear hatred as a weapon of moral and intellectual paralysis. Hate come from within us and is the handiwork of the evil, which lurks in our hearts, because hate is a human emotion created to appease human weaknesses. Hate and the recourse to hate justifies everthing, but it never promises to be a solution and those those who propagate its message and distribute its intent, are really afraid to challenge their own insecurities.
Ciao
#21 Posted by hamidm2 on February 27, 2003 6:56:04 pm
............. i don`t like indian muslims and really don`t give a flip what happens to them ..... actually, i like them less than the horrible hindoos ........ as far as i am concerned, most indian muslims are a bunch of fundamentalists who are constantly turning up their silly noses at the pakis for not being ``good`` muslims and accusing us of letting our women run loose ......... they pray a lot, wear their religion on their shirt sleeve and are constantly pestering pakis to go out to lunch with them so that they can tell them all about how horrid the horrible hindoos really are and how good the IITs are .......... on top of that, they eat dosas and idlee and other stuff that would make your stomach turn .......... and then there are the hyderabadis - which planet did they descend from ? ........ what kind of language do they speak?.... it isn`t urdu, for god`s sake !..... what is that red tomato paste stuff that they insist on serving at every meal ?........what the heck does ``aap ko hona`` mean ? ...........
......... i say, if you didn`t move in 47, when you had the chance, stay where you are and leave us alone .......... we don`t want to hear about your problems - we have enough problems of our own without having to watch a hyderabadi lick his fingers at the dinner table!
......... i say, if you didn`t move in 47, when you had the chance, stay where you are and leave us alone .......... we don`t want to hear about your problems - we have enough problems of our own without having to watch a hyderabadi lick his fingers at the dinner table!
#20 Posted by pmishra2 on February 27, 2003 6:56:04 pm
tahmed #4
Could you please explain why Savarkar is a bad guy and Jinnah is a good guy? The two together invented the TNT which lies at the heart of the Pakistan concept. Would you say both were communalists and wanted to break up unidivided India? From a secular indian viewpoint both seem identical as patriotic but with deeply flawed politics.
As I have remarked before, there appears to be a special rule in Pakistan that India must be secular. Maybe it was placed in the paki constitution by Zia? Please advise this ignorant indian.
Could you please explain why Savarkar is a bad guy and Jinnah is a good guy? The two together invented the TNT which lies at the heart of the Pakistan concept. Would you say both were communalists and wanted to break up unidivided India? From a secular indian viewpoint both seem identical as patriotic but with deeply flawed politics.
As I have remarked before, there appears to be a special rule in Pakistan that India must be secular. Maybe it was placed in the paki constitution by Zia? Please advise this ignorant indian.
#18 Posted by sadna on February 27, 2003 6:56:03 pm
Urstruly #2
Aaisa hai ki if Pakistan II comes into being, its bright future will be just as dependent on getting along with Hindus as Pakistan I`s bright future is.
Musharraf II will also keep asking for dialogue just like Musharraf I does, I don`t know for what reason.
And when those still left behind create Pakistan III, Pakistan III will also find that it is still dependent on getting along with Hindus just as Pakistan II and Pakistan I are. Musharraf III will also have to ask for dialogue like Musharraf II and Musharraf I, etc until Pakistan N comes into being and UN building overflows.
The only way for Muslims in S. Asia to get rid of the Hindu menace seems to be to drop a few thousands of nukes on Hindus and get rid of them, thats the only way. So better get to it.
Aaisa hai ki if Pakistan II comes into being, its bright future will be just as dependent on getting along with Hindus as Pakistan I`s bright future is.
Musharraf II will also keep asking for dialogue just like Musharraf I does, I don`t know for what reason.
And when those still left behind create Pakistan III, Pakistan III will also find that it is still dependent on getting along with Hindus just as Pakistan II and Pakistan I are. Musharraf III will also have to ask for dialogue like Musharraf II and Musharraf I, etc until Pakistan N comes into being and UN building overflows.
The only way for Muslims in S. Asia to get rid of the Hindu menace seems to be to drop a few thousands of nukes on Hindus and get rid of them, thats the only way. So better get to it.
#17 Posted by Studebaker on February 27, 2003 4:02:45 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#16 Posted by Studebaker on February 27, 2003 3:55:16 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#15 Posted by PaagalInsaan on February 27, 2003 3:54:58 pm
Re: #1,
The anti-war protests in ``Christian Lands`` have not weakened the fundamentalists as much as at should have. The Jamaat e Islaami has changed its stance to ``The clash of civilizations theory was created by America to make Christians and Muslims fight, and rule the world.``
I`m half way through an essay on this political somersault by the fundamentalists for some local and national urdu dailies.
#14 Posted by SameerJB on February 27, 2003 3:54:57 pm
Surprise, surprise. All the posts are from Pakistanis so far about an internal affair of India by the same people who object to Jay for keep poking finger in the internal troubles of Pakistan.
India has finally accepted two-nations-theory under BJP that Pakistan accepted and propagated since 1947. According to TNT, since Pakistanis are made up of one nation - the Muslims, Indians should be the other end of two-nation theory - the Hindus. Any problem, my fellow Pakistanis? We don`t teach devnagri or gurmukhi alphabets in Pakistan because of TNT, so India should also honor their part of TNT to stop teaching arabic alphabets at public`s expense.
All I can hope from India, on humanatarian grounds, to not treat Muslims the way we treated Hindus and Sikhs during 1947. I suggest more humanatarian solution. Take away their identity. Nothing works better in turning a group of people khassi (impotent) than taking away their language. Take away their arabic lexicon and your problem will be mostly solved. We tried with Bengalis but it backfired. However, it is working fine with rest of Pakistanis.
India has finally accepted two-nations-theory under BJP that Pakistan accepted and propagated since 1947. According to TNT, since Pakistanis are made up of one nation - the Muslims, Indians should be the other end of two-nation theory - the Hindus. Any problem, my fellow Pakistanis? We don`t teach devnagri or gurmukhi alphabets in Pakistan because of TNT, so India should also honor their part of TNT to stop teaching arabic alphabets at public`s expense.
All I can hope from India, on humanatarian grounds, to not treat Muslims the way we treated Hindus and Sikhs during 1947. I suggest more humanatarian solution. Take away their identity. Nothing works better in turning a group of people khassi (impotent) than taking away their language. Take away their arabic lexicon and your problem will be mostly solved. We tried with Bengalis but it backfired. However, it is working fine with rest of Pakistanis.
#13 Posted by Studebaker on February 27, 2003 3:54:57 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#12 Posted by harimau on February 27, 2003 3:54:57 pm
Ref tahmed32 #4
[Today the Washington Post reports that the portrait of Savarkar (a founding father of the JSS) was hanged with much pomp and ceremony by the BJP in the halls of the Indian Parliament, alongside that of Gandhi.]
The only difference is that in Pakistan you hung the picture of that other criminal Mohammed Ali Jinnah on Aug 14, 1947.
Hindus are slow to learn.
[Today the Washington Post reports that the portrait of Savarkar (a founding father of the JSS) was hanged with much pomp and ceremony by the BJP in the halls of the Indian Parliament, alongside that of Gandhi.]
The only difference is that in Pakistan you hung the picture of that other criminal Mohammed Ali Jinnah on Aug 14, 1947.
Hindus are slow to learn.
#11 Posted by temporal on February 27, 2003 3:08:16 pm
Zafar:
Re: “Consociational Model of Democracy” can you asnwer some questions?
---who is promoting this?
---what kind of support this has (a) in states and (b) nation wide?
---who grants and caliberates the `veto`?
---does this not impugnes the Constitution?
rgds,
t
Re: “Consociational Model of Democracy” can you asnwer some questions?
---who is promoting this?
---what kind of support this has (a) in states and (b) nation wide?
---who grants and caliberates the `veto`?
---does this not impugnes the Constitution?
rgds,
t
#10 Posted by harimau on February 27, 2003 2:59:27 pm
The author writes:
[After the revolt of 1857, the British began to victimize the Muslims holding them as the arch conspirators of the revolt. Thereafter came a pro-Hindu tilt in the British policies. Educationally and economically, Muslims were already lagging behind the Hindus. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan started the Aligarh Movement in response to this backwardness of the Muslims.]
This is a myth that has been circulating now for 150 years. All that happened in 1857 was that the Moghul Emperor, whose writ did not run outside the Red Fort in Delhi, was finally dispossessed of his title of Emperor and sent off into exile in Burma. Unable to collect revenues from the governors of various provinces, the various Moghul emperors had handed over revenue collection to the British in exchange for an annual income stream. Thus Bengal was handed over to the British to do as they pleased in return for 5 million pounds annually. The emperor was willing to hand over all of India in return for 50 million pounds but the British weren`t ready nor did they have the military power or administrative apparatus to run all of India. In modern parlance, Bahadur Shah`s ancestors were trying to outsource or privatise a state function called tax collection because the earlier contractors such as the Nawab of Bengal and the Nizam of Hyderabad did not keep up their end of the contract. In case you Fakhrs missed it, the Nawabs and the Nizams were Muslims but it is the Infidel Englishmen who faithfully paid his annual rent until you Fakhrs alongside Hindus rose up in revolt in 1857.
It is not as if only the Muslims lost to the British. The Peshwas of Poona had lost power to the British and the Doctrine of Lapse as propounded by Lord Dalhousie, Governor-General of India, said that when a ruler died without issue, the state would lapse to the British. Several smaller Hindu kingdoms were absorbed into British India by this leading to the famous battle of Jhansi.
If you really think that the Moghul Emperor in 1857 exercised any real power, you need to read the history of India or look at a historical map of India. The Mahrattas were already knocking at the doors of Delhi with the Scindias in power at Gwalior and having taken over all of Western and Central India away from the Moghuls. History records that the much-vaunted emperor was usually dressed in dirty rags because even the rent paid by the British was either stolen by the courtiers or was spent on wine and opium. The history of succession to the Delhi throne after Aurangzeb, where some ruled for a few months and others were stabbed to death in the Durbar Hall by courtiers, ought to eliminate any suggestion of even the legitimacy of Bahadur Shah II as a direct descendant of Aurangzeb let alone Emperor of India.
So, the only Muslims dispossessed were the courtiers and hangers-on at Red Fort. To claim that the entire Muslim community was discriminated against by the British is a blatant lie.
Let me quote from the Introduction to ``The Indian Musalmans`` by W. W. Hunter. The book itself was published in 1871 but the introduction by Bimal Prasad is of recent origin. He says:
{Some recent studies, based on solid research, have convincingly shown that the picture of Muslim backwardness in education and employment has generally been overdrawn.....In Bengal and the Punjab, where the bulk of Muslims were agriculturists, they were, of course, backward, but this was not the case in areas like Madras, Bombay and UP. Thus in Madras between 1871-2 and 1881-2, while the number of Hindu boys going to school doubled, that of Muslim boys quadrupled. in 1885-6, one out of every 64 Muslim boys and one out of every 76 Hindu boys were in school. According to the 1901 Census, Muslims constituted 6.5 per cent of the Madras Presidency, but Muslim pupils constituted 9.7 per cent of the school-going population. Muslims were, of course, backward in higher education, but the same was true of all Hindus except Brahmins in the Bombay Presidency. Except in Sind, where the Muslims were mainly agriculturists and quite backward in education, the percentage of Muslim pupils was higher than the percentage of Muslim population. Thus in 1881, Muslims formed only 10 per cent of the population of Gujarat but over 12 per cent of the pupils. Similarly, in the Deccan, they formed only 5.4 per cent of the population, but 6.5 per cent of the pupils. Again, except for Sind, literacy among Muslims was more widespread than among Hindus. In UP, Muslims were ahead of Hindus at all stages of education, including higher education [1].}
Bimal Prasad was a professor of history at Jawaharlal Nehru University, which is known for other historians who claim that Hindu kings, not Muslim Sultans, demolished the temples of Northern India. Since you Fakhrs have the tendency to believe the latter story, you then have to believe Bimal Prasad too. In fact, Bimal Prasad at least has Indian Census figures to back his claim compared to Romila Thapar and other left-wing Hindu apologists.
Bimal Prasad goes on to say {The subject of Muslim share in government employment has been dealt with more thoroughly in an articles by Zafarul Islam and Raymond L. Jansen, published in a reputed journal in Pakistan. They categorically state that `the Muslims fared far better than has been alleged. That the Muslims were nearly excluded from ``Civil Employ`` is obviously untrue.` [2]}
References:
[1] Aparna Basu, Education and Political Development in India, 1898-1920, pp.147-150.
[2] Zafarul Islam and Raymond L. Jansen, `Indian Muslims and Public Service`, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Pakistan (Dacca), Vol IX, no, 1, June 1965, pp. 85-149.
But keep lying. That would enable the Indian Muslim to wallow in self-pity and ask for hand-outs for the Haj pigrimage so that at least his life hereafter would be better as opposed to actually buckling down to do an honest day`s work.
[After the revolt of 1857, the British began to victimize the Muslims holding them as the arch conspirators of the revolt. Thereafter came a pro-Hindu tilt in the British policies. Educationally and economically, Muslims were already lagging behind the Hindus. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan started the Aligarh Movement in response to this backwardness of the Muslims.]
This is a myth that has been circulating now for 150 years. All that happened in 1857 was that the Moghul Emperor, whose writ did not run outside the Red Fort in Delhi, was finally dispossessed of his title of Emperor and sent off into exile in Burma. Unable to collect revenues from the governors of various provinces, the various Moghul emperors had handed over revenue collection to the British in exchange for an annual income stream. Thus Bengal was handed over to the British to do as they pleased in return for 5 million pounds annually. The emperor was willing to hand over all of India in return for 50 million pounds but the British weren`t ready nor did they have the military power or administrative apparatus to run all of India. In modern parlance, Bahadur Shah`s ancestors were trying to outsource or privatise a state function called tax collection because the earlier contractors such as the Nawab of Bengal and the Nizam of Hyderabad did not keep up their end of the contract. In case you Fakhrs missed it, the Nawabs and the Nizams were Muslims but it is the Infidel Englishmen who faithfully paid his annual rent until you Fakhrs alongside Hindus rose up in revolt in 1857.
It is not as if only the Muslims lost to the British. The Peshwas of Poona had lost power to the British and the Doctrine of Lapse as propounded by Lord Dalhousie, Governor-General of India, said that when a ruler died without issue, the state would lapse to the British. Several smaller Hindu kingdoms were absorbed into British India by this leading to the famous battle of Jhansi.
If you really think that the Moghul Emperor in 1857 exercised any real power, you need to read the history of India or look at a historical map of India. The Mahrattas were already knocking at the doors of Delhi with the Scindias in power at Gwalior and having taken over all of Western and Central India away from the Moghuls. History records that the much-vaunted emperor was usually dressed in dirty rags because even the rent paid by the British was either stolen by the courtiers or was spent on wine and opium. The history of succession to the Delhi throne after Aurangzeb, where some ruled for a few months and others were stabbed to death in the Durbar Hall by courtiers, ought to eliminate any suggestion of even the legitimacy of Bahadur Shah II as a direct descendant of Aurangzeb let alone Emperor of India.
So, the only Muslims dispossessed were the courtiers and hangers-on at Red Fort. To claim that the entire Muslim community was discriminated against by the British is a blatant lie.
Let me quote from the Introduction to ``The Indian Musalmans`` by W. W. Hunter. The book itself was published in 1871 but the introduction by Bimal Prasad is of recent origin. He says:
{Some recent studies, based on solid research, have convincingly shown that the picture of Muslim backwardness in education and employment has generally been overdrawn.....In Bengal and the Punjab, where the bulk of Muslims were agriculturists, they were, of course, backward, but this was not the case in areas like Madras, Bombay and UP. Thus in Madras between 1871-2 and 1881-2, while the number of Hindu boys going to school doubled, that of Muslim boys quadrupled. in 1885-6, one out of every 64 Muslim boys and one out of every 76 Hindu boys were in school. According to the 1901 Census, Muslims constituted 6.5 per cent of the Madras Presidency, but Muslim pupils constituted 9.7 per cent of the school-going population. Muslims were, of course, backward in higher education, but the same was true of all Hindus except Brahmins in the Bombay Presidency. Except in Sind, where the Muslims were mainly agriculturists and quite backward in education, the percentage of Muslim pupils was higher than the percentage of Muslim population. Thus in 1881, Muslims formed only 10 per cent of the population of Gujarat but over 12 per cent of the pupils. Similarly, in the Deccan, they formed only 5.4 per cent of the population, but 6.5 per cent of the pupils. Again, except for Sind, literacy among Muslims was more widespread than among Hindus. In UP, Muslims were ahead of Hindus at all stages of education, including higher education [1].}
Bimal Prasad was a professor of history at Jawaharlal Nehru University, which is known for other historians who claim that Hindu kings, not Muslim Sultans, demolished the temples of Northern India. Since you Fakhrs have the tendency to believe the latter story, you then have to believe Bimal Prasad too. In fact, Bimal Prasad at least has Indian Census figures to back his claim compared to Romila Thapar and other left-wing Hindu apologists.
Bimal Prasad goes on to say {The subject of Muslim share in government employment has been dealt with more thoroughly in an articles by Zafarul Islam and Raymond L. Jansen, published in a reputed journal in Pakistan. They categorically state that `the Muslims fared far better than has been alleged. That the Muslims were nearly excluded from ``Civil Employ`` is obviously untrue.` [2]}
References:
[1] Aparna Basu, Education and Political Development in India, 1898-1920, pp.147-150.
[2] Zafarul Islam and Raymond L. Jansen, `Indian Muslims and Public Service`, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Pakistan (Dacca), Vol IX, no, 1, June 1965, pp. 85-149.
But keep lying. That would enable the Indian Muslim to wallow in self-pity and ask for hand-outs for the Haj pigrimage so that at least his life hereafter would be better as opposed to actually buckling down to do an honest day`s work.
#9 Posted by Studebaker on February 27, 2003 2:39:05 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#8 Posted by Ansari on February 27, 2003 2:33:05 pm
Zafar sahab,
You write, ``...secularism as officially promoted in India alienates both Hindus and Muslims. Hence, a positive acceptance of diverse identities rooted in religion as enunciated by Gandhi has better prospects for national integration than secular principles.``
So in order to receive legitimacy in the eyes of a state that barely grudges them the right to exist, Muslims must continue to be Muslims? What Javed Akhtar says sounds a little naive because when you think about it, is it really a religious identity (which is exceedingly difficult to contain within a nationalistic context given the diversity Islam enjoys in its practitioners) the Sangh Parivar and its adherents are reacting to or perhaps a set of politically convenient labels, carefully construed to protect the interests of a particular group? Is the problem not within the political structure itself that allows such blatant discrimination to go by unchecked?
Is it really about Hinduism? Has Hinduism really seen a resurgence with the advent of the Sangh Parivar or has the ideology merely spawned off another nationalistic militancy, as gruesome as the Nazis`?
And who can say that once the Muslims have been removed, or ethnically cleansed or whatever passes for the murder of innocent people, the same politicians (or political ideology) will not turn against another community (maybe the Sikhs) for whatever twisted purpose?
You write, ``...secularism as officially promoted in India alienates both Hindus and Muslims. Hence, a positive acceptance of diverse identities rooted in religion as enunciated by Gandhi has better prospects for national integration than secular principles.``
So in order to receive legitimacy in the eyes of a state that barely grudges them the right to exist, Muslims must continue to be Muslims? What Javed Akhtar says sounds a little naive because when you think about it, is it really a religious identity (which is exceedingly difficult to contain within a nationalistic context given the diversity Islam enjoys in its practitioners) the Sangh Parivar and its adherents are reacting to or perhaps a set of politically convenient labels, carefully construed to protect the interests of a particular group? Is the problem not within the political structure itself that allows such blatant discrimination to go by unchecked?
Is it really about Hinduism? Has Hinduism really seen a resurgence with the advent of the Sangh Parivar or has the ideology merely spawned off another nationalistic militancy, as gruesome as the Nazis`?
And who can say that once the Muslims have been removed, or ethnically cleansed or whatever passes for the murder of innocent people, the same politicians (or political ideology) will not turn against another community (maybe the Sikhs) for whatever twisted purpose?
#7 Posted by Urstruly on February 27, 2003 2:33:04 pm
Ahmadzai
I agree with your assesment on all issues except one that ``India will attack Pakistan``. In my opinion, from now on an armed conflict is not possible - the most they can do is to amass their army at our borders like they did last year and kept it there for a year. Hindu religious nuts who are currently ruling India are crazy but definitely not stupid.
#6 Posted by harimau on February 27, 2003 2:33:04 pm
The author writes:
[After the revolt of 1857, the British began to victimize the Muslims holding them as the arch conspirators of the revolt. Thereafter came a pro-Hindu tilt in the British policies. Educationally and economically, Muslims were already lagging behind the Hindus. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan started the Aligarh Movement in response to this backwardness of the Muslims.]
This is a myth that has been circulating now for 150 years.All that happened in 1857 was that the Moghul Emperor, whose writ did not run outside the Red Fort in Delhi, was finally dispossessed of his title of Emperor and sent off into exile in Burma. Unable to collect revenues from the governors of various provinces, the various Moghul emperors had handed over revenue collection to the British in exchange for an annual income stream. Thus Bengal was handed over to the British to do as they pleased in return for 5 million pounds annually. The emperor was willing to hand over all of India in return for 50 million pounds
[After the revolt of 1857, the British began to victimize the Muslims holding them as the arch conspirators of the revolt. Thereafter came a pro-Hindu tilt in the British policies. Educationally and economically, Muslims were already lagging behind the Hindus. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan started the Aligarh Movement in response to this backwardness of the Muslims.]
This is a myth that has been circulating now for 150 years.All that happened in 1857 was that the Moghul Emperor, whose writ did not run outside the Red Fort in Delhi, was finally dispossessed of his title of Emperor and sent off into exile in Burma. Unable to collect revenues from the governors of various provinces, the various Moghul emperors had handed over revenue collection to the British in exchange for an annual income stream. Thus Bengal was handed over to the British to do as they pleased in return for 5 million pounds annually. The emperor was willing to hand over all of India in return for 50 million pounds
#5 Posted by pmishra2 on February 27, 2003 2:33:04 pm
Good commsensical article. I agree that post-Babri the situation of the indian muslims in North India has become much more precarious and unequal. I am also glad to see an honest analysis of the 1985 Shah Bano case and Rajiv Gandhi`s two-faced comminalist strategy.
Unlike the pakistani posters who are under the impression that somehow pakistani islamists will be ``helpful`` to indian muslims (so far the ``help`` they have provided through the Kashmir jihad has come in quite handy for the RSS/VHP program!!), it is focussing on civil society and core indian values that seems much more helpful.
A new image of indian muslims as patriotic to the core (which they are but has little projection in the media) and deeply involved with the welfare of all their fellow citizens (muslim and non-muslim) is what is needed. We are all in this together (I mean indians, not bigots like Urstruly) and will sink or swim together.
Unlike the pakistani posters who are under the impression that somehow pakistani islamists will be ``helpful`` to indian muslims (so far the ``help`` they have provided through the Kashmir jihad has come in quite handy for the RSS/VHP program!!), it is focussing on civil society and core indian values that seems much more helpful.
A new image of indian muslims as patriotic to the core (which they are but has little projection in the media) and deeply involved with the welfare of all their fellow citizens (muslim and non-muslim) is what is needed. We are all in this together (I mean indians, not bigots like Urstruly) and will sink or swim together.
#4 Posted by Ahmadzai on February 27, 2003 1:36:29 pm
Urstruly:
Please read my various Afghanistan related posts on Samina Shah`s Tunnel interactive board.
As regards this post of yours, another Pakistan can emerge in India if the Hindu nationalism continues unchecked. I believe that Indian seculars will be able to check it. However, if they don`t, this whole region will witness instability.
Since I am usually not able to mentally associate myself with short-term time frames, my long-term projection is as follows:
In case Indian Muslims are not treated properly, extremist Islamic parties in Pakistan will get stronger. So will be their desire for pan-Islamism. They will attempt to make our state weaker by pushing into India, especially if they are able to gain the sympathy of Indian Muslims. This may encourage India to attack Pakistan, which may lead to a civil war within India. Every Muslim is in it. Perhaps I am not able to explain it in English, but just imagine it can translate into every disenchanted Indian ethnic group for the other`s throat. Eventually, Pakistan`s unity may become questionable even though for a start there may be unity through pan-Islamism.
Please read my various Afghanistan related posts on Samina Shah`s Tunnel interactive board.
As regards this post of yours, another Pakistan can emerge in India if the Hindu nationalism continues unchecked. I believe that Indian seculars will be able to check it. However, if they don`t, this whole region will witness instability.
Since I am usually not able to mentally associate myself with short-term time frames, my long-term projection is as follows:
In case Indian Muslims are not treated properly, extremist Islamic parties in Pakistan will get stronger. So will be their desire for pan-Islamism. They will attempt to make our state weaker by pushing into India, especially if they are able to gain the sympathy of Indian Muslims. This may encourage India to attack Pakistan, which may lead to a civil war within India. Every Muslim is in it. Perhaps I am not able to explain it in English, but just imagine it can translate into every disenchanted Indian ethnic group for the other`s throat. Eventually, Pakistan`s unity may become questionable even though for a start there may be unity through pan-Islamism.
#3 Posted by tahmed32 on February 27, 2003 1:36:29 pm
Today the Washington Post reports that the portrait of Savarkar (a founding father of the JSS) was hanged with much pomp and ceremony by the BJP in the halls of the Indian Parliament, alongside that of Gandhi. The paper reports that Gandhi`s murderer is known to have visited Savarkar`s house frequently, and there appears no doubt in many people`s mind that Gandhi was killed by Savarkar. Savarkar`s other contribution to India is the coining of the phrase ``Hindutva`` (hindu way). He condemned Indian muslims and christians for not regarding India as their holy land. No doubt this is a big day for the many hate-mongerers in India, and I can see Jay wetting his pants with delight in his cell. :-)
It is a sad day for all those in India and in Pakistan who wish to see peace and sanity and goodwill prevail in the subcontinent. That dream seems to move further and further away with each passing year...
It is a sad day for all those in India and in Pakistan who wish to see peace and sanity and goodwill prevail in the subcontinent. That dream seems to move further and further away with each passing year...
#2 Posted by Urstruly on February 27, 2003 11:26:24 am
Good article - sane advices.
But keep in mind that the social dynamics has a momentum of its own where external forces equally contribute along with the internal ones. You can corner a cat only for so long; in the end it comes for your eyes. The way the things are going, I see another Pakistan emerging from the womb of Hindustan. The division in 1947 was never fair......the unjust re-occupation of Kashmir, Junagadh, and Hyderabad by Hindus, right after the formula of partition was agreed upon, has spurred the wheel in a certain direction, and that direction is the emergence of another Pakistan. This wheel cannot be set to turn in reverse now. While the secular Hindus have burried their heads in the sand, the religious nuts have sensed what is coming their way....so they have started to react the only way they can - the uncompromising way. Please keep in mind that it took only 24 years from conception to realization of the idea of the existing Pakistan - the emergence of a new Paksitan may take a little longer (or shorter; Bosnia & Kosovo emerged in less than 10 years). But that is inevitable.
#1 Posted by Ahmadzai on February 27, 2003 11:14:50 am
This is a good article coming from an Indian Muslim. I wish all the Indian Muslims the very best of life in India.
However, the writer wrote: ``plain English, it means that the fundamentalist and opportunistic Muslim leadership has to be completely disowned by the Muslims. I think the Muslims of India have done that. ``
This has to be done by Pakistanis also.
An encouraging point to note is that the recently held mass anti-war protest demonstrations all over the `Christian lands` have made the fundamentalist Muslims of Pakistan weaker, as their stance of painting US lead war on Iraq as anti-Muslim has been put to death.
In India however, the fundamentalist and nationalist Hindus lead by the current Government are becoming stronger on the basis of their stance in Gujrat that will be replicated all over India.
However, the writer wrote: ``plain English, it means that the fundamentalist and opportunistic Muslim leadership has to be completely disowned by the Muslims. I think the Muslims of India have done that. ``
This has to be done by Pakistanis also.
An encouraging point to note is that the recently held mass anti-war protest demonstrations all over the `Christian lands` have made the fundamentalist Muslims of Pakistan weaker, as their stance of painting US lead war on Iraq as anti-Muslim has been put to death.
In India however, the fundamentalist and nationalist Hindus lead by the current Government are becoming stronger on the basis of their stance in Gujrat that will be replicated all over India.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- SureshM: Re: # 36 God Bless... Uneven Democracy : The
- SureshM: Re: # 59 "kuwait... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 35 this... Uneven Democracy : The
- jayp: Re: # 55 Good muslim... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- jayp: Re: # 53 thanks madani... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- Pardesi: Breaking News for ahmedmadani... Uneven Democracy : The
- a_r_j_u_n325: #94 Posted by... The Strange Case of
- a_r_j_u_n325: #95 Posted by... The Strange Case of
