Muslims in India: Communalism vs. Backwardness-Minority Syndrome

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

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.

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.

............. 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!

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

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: 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.

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

“”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...

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.