Muslims in India: Communalism vs. Backwardness-Minority Syndrome
Zafar Anjum February 27, 2003
#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.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#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.
#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...
#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.
#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.
#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
#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.
#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?
#9 Posted by Studebaker on February 27, 2003 2:39:05 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#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.
#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
#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.
#13 Posted by Studebaker on February 27, 2003 3:54:57 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#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.
#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.
#16 Posted by Studebaker on February 27, 2003 3:55:16 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#17 Posted by Studebaker on February 27, 2003 4:02:45 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#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.
#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.
#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!
#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
#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?
#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.
#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
#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...
#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.
#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.
#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.)
#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.
#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
#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.
#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
#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.
#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.
#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!!
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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
#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
#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
#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
#44 Posted by Tipu on February 28, 2003 9:55:18 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#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
#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.
#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.
#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
#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.
#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``. :-)
#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.
#52 Posted by Tipu on February 28, 2003 3:58:44 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#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
#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.
#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.
#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!!
#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 ............
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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.
#64 Posted by Tipu on February 28, 2003 9:10:31 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.
#66 Posted by Tipu on February 28, 2003 11:51:33 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#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
#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...
#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
#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 !) !!
#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 foami
.......... 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 foami