Muslims in India: Communalism vs. Backwardness-Minority Syndrome

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

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.

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?

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 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!

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.