Excavating India

Layman (#114):
You say the Babri Masjid had no religious significance for the Muslims; true. That is, until the issue was politicised and the Hindus made it into ‘their’ religious agenda. Naturally, many Muslims felt that the structure was of much more significance as a response. And right now, it is the reason for the major cleavage between the two communities. Hoarse voices keep shouting that there is no need to rake it up when developmental issues lie dormant, but it is the responsibility of the government. And the government, its emissaries, its cohorts are doing their darndest to keep the subject alive, and people are responding to that. I have mentioned in my article that even after the HC verdict the VHP had the gall to make its separate pronouncements. Sure, it is not a part of the government, neither is SIMI a part of any government. We must accept that such organisations do have tacit support.

Re. Magnanimity, believe me, were the Muslims to do so, NOTHING will be solved. Forget just the BJP, the Congress too will be left in the lurch. And then, where does it end? We already have the Jains claiming rights over the site, and some Buddhists too.

m_souza (#117):
The point is not whether or not Mughal art has been appreciated or not, but at this NRI event it was not available for viewing. This was a special art fiesta bringing together the works that represented Indian art from different periods. Mughal miniatures were nowhere in sight. This was deliberate. (Reported in the Express of somewhere around that time – I keep paper cuttings, which are discarded or get frayed after a while, so cannot provide the exact date. It was written by Coomi Kapoor, though.)

I am afraid your post is less positive than my attitude! I don’t care whether Hindus appreciate Muslim food, customs, art and vice versa – I am talking about how a certain part of history is sought to be wiped out. Forced conversions did take place, but Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world today and no one is forcing some westerners to convert.

There are many ‘Muslim’ things I would not want to have anything to do with, therefore I have a right to forgo and dismiss Hindu, Christian, Sikh, and Scientology as well.

You had stated earlier that you went out of your way to befriend Muslims to work at cohesiveness. For most of us here, the effort is not required; it is a natural process. There are ghettoes everywhere for all communities, not restricted to Muslims. If I want ‘gun powder’ in Mumbai (mulgapudi, the South Indian chilly powder!) I have to go to Matunga, the Vile Parle area is predominantly Gujarati, Sion-Koliwada is Sikh and Bhendi Bazaar is Muslim.

And except for the political parties, not many Hindus care a fig about whether Muslims think they are ‘kafirs’ or not; in India the reasons are how they (and common Muslims) are being emotionally blackmailed.

We BOTH have to think positively. Not being a mafia don, I am sure at least you can understand what I am saying.
-----

- I have never asked any Hindu (except the PM) to apologise for Babri or Gujarat. In fact, I think that is the big problem. They apologise, or write apologetic letters/articles and do the Muslims a favour, joined by the ‘liberal’ Muslims. This coterie then decides and creates a quasi mullahism of its own. And the last people I want an apology from are NRIs.

- Oh dear, I am supposed to be laying the guilt on someone here personally…and yet with all that guilt he can spout his venom everywhere, not just on my boards.

- This article was written when the excavation at Ayodhya started. (Ashis Nandy had given a wonderful argument against it in Sunday’s TOI.) Topicality. It was not that I discovered I had a Hindu driver. Besides, people are spending more time here looking for warts in my ‘baby’ instead of feeding their own. And I can write about anything I want.

- I can thank whoever I want to. So a special thank you to urstruly and my apologies to the other liberal Pakistanis who have been forming their opinions based on what some ‘Indians’ here say: This is not what India is about, not all of us need to use foul language, not all of us bend backwards to justify a wrong, not all of us behave so badly. Some of us are really nice, but then we are the real Indians. I am sure you already know the difference by now.

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

#129 by FarzanaVersey on March 18, 2003 9:27pm PT

+
Mughal miniatures were nowhere in sight. This was deliberate.
+

Maybe it was delibrate. We can never know what happens in our ‘incredible India’. I read some articles by Coomi kapoor. She does come out very strongly with her views.


+
I am afraid your post is less positive than my attitude! ………….
Forced conversions did take place, but Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world today and no one is forcing some westerners to convert.
+

My post sounded more negative than my real attitude.

And what happens in the west or the rest of the world has nothing to do with the history of our country. We are we, they are they. Just like Hinduism in Nepal or Indonesia etc (I saw a documentary on Indonesian Hindu rituals which I could not even relate to), is different from Indian Hinduism. I have seen all the white people belonging to Hare Krishna sect much more devoted to Krshna than any Indian Hindu, I mean the way they chant and dance in euphoria, we don’t.

So, what happens in their countries is theirs. We have to improve our versions of Hinduism and Islam as distinct from the rest of the world, without bothering too much about Muslim brotherhood or Hindu bhai chara. Reason being, we have been(are) a secular country till now and have this big task of maintaining the same.

+
You had stated earlier that you went out of your way to befriend Muslims to work at cohesiveness.
+

Nope…I stated earlier that I make sure I am friendly with all non-Hindus, I didn’t say only Muslims.
Overseas, we are all the same, just Indians. First question we ask a stranger Indian-looking person is: Are you Indian? If there is a ‘yes’ to this answer, the next question is: Which state/city? None cares, which religion.

+
“For most of us here, the effort is not required; it is a natural process. “
+

Wow Farzana…congrats..this was the best part of your post.. Yes, that is what I wanted to hear. That we are secular after all, we are one. That in India we don’t have to make any special efforts to be secular. It is inbuilt in the multicultural social structure by now.
Oh yes, Ghettos are everywhere indeed, so no worries…people feel comfortable with their own kind.

And Farzana, the way you write all the names of Bombay (I mean Mumbai) suburbs sounds really ‘mast’. Being a northie I have never been to Bombay but would like to.

+
And except for the political parties, not many Hindus care a fig about whether Muslims think they are ‘kafirs’ or not
+

Yes, I was brought up in India and never heard anyone calling me ‘kafir’ (infact didn’t even know the meaning of it). But sometimes they are at each others necks, these two communities, maybe just for fun and ‘time-pass’ or just fighting like kids. But they forget it soon, I feel.

+
And the last people I want an apology from are NRIs.
+

Oh my my, we NRIs don’t feel good being outcasted like this. Hum kahan jaaein bolo.

+
Some of us are really nice, but then we are the real Indians. I am sure you already know the difference by now.
+

Yes, Urstruly and others ‘Hum logon ko samjh sako to samjho dilwar jaani, jitna humko samjogey utnee hogi hairani, phir bhi dil hai Hindustani… ’

Ref FarzanaVersey #129

[- I have never asked any Hindu (except the PM) to apologise for Babri or Gujarat. In fact, I think that is the big problem.]

Finally, you agree with me on something! I have always said that Hindus have nothing to apologize for.

[And the last people I want an apology from are NRIs.]

Good thing. You certainly won`t get one from me.

[- Oh dear, I am supposed to be laying the guilt on someone here personally…and yet with all that guilt he can spout his venom everywhere, not just on my boards.]

Venom? How about food for thought? How about (metaphorically) picking you up, shaking you and setting you down and asking if you can think more clearly?

[- This article was written when the excavation at Ayodhya started. (Ashis Nandy had given a wonderful argument against it in Sunday’s TOI.) Topicality. It was not that I discovered I had a Hindu driver.]

I suppose that is a cheap shot at my article ``A Chance Remark``.

Farzana, are you sitting down as you read this? Do you have the phone number of a physician handy? Because, I am going to let you in on a fact and you may actually pop an artery when you read it: my family in Chennai employs not one but two Muslim drivers.

No, no, no; don`t change your mind about me because of that. Maybe someday you will all learn to separate rhetoric from personal beliefs.

PS. Would you care for some Zam Zam water? It may cure you of whatever it is that ails you.

PPS. Did you have to call a doctor? Inquiring minds want to know.

Is ``Sangilikkaruppan`` a cuss word in Sanskrit? From Haimau`s post I understand two things:

1. Soysauce IS preceived as a threat to Brahmin establishment. (My initial assessment was incorrect.

2. Soysauce wants to emulate the brahmin exploits. This needs explanation. First of all it is an admission that brahmins exploit but then how a lower caste hindu would emulate brahmin exploitativeness by asking to be recognized as a lower caste. This beats the logic. You can either have one or the other.

I would also like to see soysauce`s opinion here. He seems to me to be an ultra-pacifist. He need not worry. Sometimes I dont bite, especially, when I am in learning mode.

Urstruly:
I want to know why soysauce is hated so much by so many Hindus.

Prove it.

As a matter of fact, I think he (soy) wants to maintain the status quo of unequality of castes (judging from his posts)

Other than religion, what other drugs are you on?

Ref Sangilikkaruppan #134

Urstruly said [As a matter of fact, I think he (soy) wants to maintain the status quo of unequality of castes (judging from his posts)]

and you replied

[Other than religion, what other drugs are you on?]

Hey, Sangilikkaruppan; you are absolutely right. You want to erase the inequality between your caste and the brahmins but don`t care about the inequality between you and a Dalit. Want proof? Read the matrimonials. How many Chettiars and Mudaliars are asking for brahmin brides hoping that they could snare at least a dirt-poor brahmin girl in preference to one of their own castes who might bring them a ton of money as dowry? By the way, I haven`t seen a single one of those Chettiars and Mudaliars asking for a Dalit bride.

Trying to improve the gene pool, I suppose. Your gene pool could use chlorination, not incremental improvement.

Ref Urstruly #133

[Is ``Sangilikkaruppan`` a cuss word in Sanskrit?]

No. Honestly, Sangilikkaruppan is a very good Tamil name for a male. Other names common in Tamil Nadu are Sudalaikkannu, Sudalaimuthu, Maasanamuthu, Nallakannu, Karuppannasamy, Ezhumalai, etc. However, the parents of folks like Soysauce, instead of picking one of these traditional names of Tamil Nadu, usually choose to name their kids Tamil Mani (Tamil Jewel), Tamil Arasan (Tamil King), Anbarasan (Love King), etc. I refuse to accept such names for Soysauce and call him Sangilikkaruppan or Maasanamuthu.

Interestingly, some of these guys in turn name their kids Lavanya, Akshaya, Vidya, etc., all of which are Sanskrit words. I refuse to accept these names also and that is why I refer to Soysauce`s daughter as Love Queen. I suppose I could have chosen to call her Karuppayee.

[From Haimau`s post I understand two things:

1. Soysauce IS preceived as a threat to Brahmin establishment. (My initial assessment was incorrect.]

Not at all true. People like Soysauce who have abused a quota system meant to benefit the downtrodden to get a professional degree are no threat to any person of intellectual integrity. The only threat, if Soysauce is a physician, is to the general public at large. This is well-known to the vote-bank politicians of India. In fact, right now the champion of quota-based professional education in Tamil Nadu, Murasoli Maran, is undergoing treatment (for the last three months or more -- at the expense of the Indian government because he is a Minister in the Central Cabinet) for a defective heart valve in Houston, TX, knowing fully well that if he put himself in the hands of the doctors he has created in the last 40 years, he would have been dead long ago. Soysauce has no problems with this because he knows his own incompetence but is able to make a good living off the long-suffering people of India.

[2. Soysauce wants to emulate the brahmin exploits. This needs explanation. First of all it is an admission that brahmins exploit but then how a lower caste hindu would emulate brahmin exploitativeness by asking to be recognized as a lower caste. This beats the logic. You can either have one or the other.]

There is a difference between exploits and exploitation. Brahmin exploits are well-known including the only two Nobel Prizes in Physics that Indians have won. The first person to graduate from the Engineering College at Guindy, Madras, back in the nineteenth century was a brahmin. Brahmins also enrolled in large numbers as surveyors and worked on the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India by George Everest, dying in the process because of malaria or tiger attacks. South Indian brahmins of the 1950s went to Russia and learnt how to build and operate steel plants and built the steel plant at Bhilai with Russian assistance. The fact that these people spent years in Russia adhering to their vegetarian lifestyle where no vegetables are available during the harsh winter speaks volumes about their dedication. Unfortunately, Soysauce believes that going to a foreign country on assignment is a plum job (much like Pak Army officers going to the Middle East) and figured that if only he could get into a professional college, he would also be able to go abroad for personal enrichment.

Soysauce, or Sangilikkaruppan to use the name he would have received two generations ago, has been raised on a steady propaganda that brahmins exploited the poor of Tamil Nadu and it is the duty of the non-brahmins to overthrow the alleged brahmin domination of the political and employment sphere. The regular use of movies and party newspapers to heap abuse on brahmins led to the complete elimination of brahmins (at 3% of the population, a minuscule minority) from public life and along with that probity in government. Emboldened agricultural workers refused to pay brahmin landlords their share of the produce and the brahmin landlords, few in number anyway, sold their lands to people like Soysauce who do not stop at murder and rape to get the farm workers to behave. The agricultural laborers who would not have received even a beating from their brahmin landlords (Sangilikkaruppan would be the first one to point out that brahmins practiced Untouchability against all castes but would conveniently forget the fact that then they could not possibly lay hands on anybody to beat them) are now routinely murdered if they so much as say one word to their non-brahmin landlords.

No, Sangilikkaruppan does not want to emulate brahmin exploits (he is intellectually incapable of doing that) but wants to emulate the alleged brahmin exploitation of lower castes. He then needs to explain why Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore banned the money-lender caste of Chettiars from showing up near government offices on payday to collect their usurious interest (they will never take back the principal amount). You can be sure of one thing: Sangilikkaruppan will never convert to Islam because Islam bans interest-bearing loans.

[I would also like to see soysauce`s opinion here. He seems to me to be an ultra-pacifist. He need not worry. Sometimes I dont bite, especially, when I am in learning mode.]

Sangilikkaruppan does not have an original thought, so don`t expect his considered opinion but only a rehash of the propaganda that he has been fed since childhood. He is not an ultra-pacifist, just an a$$-kisser. He does not even know that the leaders he has been following such as Father Big Man, The Great Intellectual and the Doctor Artist Leader actually observed August 15, 1947, as a day of mourning taking out black-flag processions, having failed in their bid to have the British stay on as the colonial masters. As to freeing the downtrodden from cruel exploitation, Father Big Man & Company railed against the Salt March of Gandhi who was protesting the cruel Salt Tax that fell heavily on the poor; so much for their concern for the poor citizens of India. Don`t expect to learn anything from this idiot; you might as well enroll in a college in Tamil Nadu such as the one Sangilikkaruppan attended.

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

All this caste discussion in posts 135 and 136 about ``Sangilikkaruppan``

I am not aware of this much `caste awareness` (or should I call it distinction) in North India. Maybe it is more prevelant in South India. I lived in the south for couple of years, I remember my South Indian brahmin friends telling me how strict their parents are at the time of marriage, with each and every gotra in teh kundali(astrological chart) beign matched. And also that they don`t marry even a bit lower level brahmin, it has to be the same higher level brahmin.

I am from north indian kshtriya class and have a brahmin north indian bhabi, we don`t think she is higher or anything and nor does her family think so.

I donot think any Kshatriya(warrior class/king class) or Vaishya(business class) are dying to get their children married in a Brahmin family? What would they get by doing so? Neither are the Khatris(warrior class kshtriyas) just fighting any wars these days nor are Vaishyas(arora busienss class) just doing business.
Times changed long ago. Now, we have highly educated people in all classes and castes, not just brahmins.
Similarly, I have not seen any extra grants or prestige being given to the pundit ji in a mandir. I mean, if I have to choose between `joining the army/navy` or `becoming a head-pundit` of even the best temple in the city, I would prefer to be a `fauji`.

Even the business class has done very well for the country. So, money and economy does well this way. Brahmins have also business men (and faujis). Even the lowest class/caste people are shunning their traditional roles, if they can.
Look at our army, a mixture fo all castes and relgions.

But we do indeed have a brahmin performing the rituals at the time of birth, marriage, death etc so we can`t underestimate that. And that`s it.

Farzana I suppose would be quiet on this issue.
But no comments from anyone about the massacre of Hindus in the Valley. And not to forget the thousands of Kashmiri Pandits who have fled their ancestoral homes.

Is it because Hindus are not supposed to be the victims? Only muslims all over the world are bein gvictimised, isn`t it Farzana..

When all the previously victimised Hindus have been converted to Islam, then how can they whinge and complain.

Dear Farzana,

Thanks so much for the article, which I’ve just seen. It really opened my eyes to the way even apparently “liberal” and so-called “leftist/Communist” Muslims think and feel. I have plenty of Muslim friends and I’ve always believed we can talk on any subject, even Hindu and Muslim fundamentalism and the way both groups have been wrecking our country, and they’ve never mentioned even a tenth of the things you say. Now I know why thugs like the VHP and Bajrang Dal have managed to enter mainstream politics. If all Muslims feel the way you do, no wonder they arouse such a violent response among non-Muslims.

I know that I’m quite a bit late in writing back to you, but I’d still like to point out a few things about your article, and hope you’ll read what I write dispassionately and not just trash it as hate mail, just because I’m a Hindu. Because this isn’t hate mail, and though I don’t think I can convince you to accept my point of view I do believe that there are always at least two sides to every story and every conflict, and before we make sweeping statements about anything we should be properly informed about what we’re saying.

1. Why this anger about the archaeological excavations in Ayodhya? I thought the basic problem arose because there’s a long-standing tradition that Babur the conqueror destroyed a Hindu temple to Ram to build a mosque. This is in keeping with what all the Muslim invaders of India have done (and certain Indian Muslim kings, too, unfortunately), in order to justify their loot and plunder to themselves. My understanding was that (a) Muslims believe that there was no temple that was demolished, and (b) they don’t worship at a place that has been built after destroying another place of worship. Am I wrong? As I follow it, the excavations should prove or disprove the contention that a Hindu temple was destroyed to erect the mosque, so that should settle things once and for all. That’s why I don’t understand why you (and so many others) object to this. Surely you’d want an end to all this fighting? Do you question the archaeologists’ motives or competence? If you do, demand that an observer of proven integrity and ability, whom you trust – preferably a Muslim – joins the dig. Or is it that you’re afraid that there really will be some kind of proof that there was a temple at the site, which was destroyed deliberately to build a mosque?
2. Why should anyone think of excavating the area around the Taj Mahal? It’s not a question of it being built on a temple which was deliberately demolished. The RSS or whatever claim that there used to be a Rajput fort/palace, but that doesn’t have the same emotive appeal of a place of worship. So it’s not a matter of tourists bringing in money, nor Hindus profiteering from what a Muslim built, that stops anyone from demanding excavations there, which seems to be what you’ve suggested. In any case, most of the people making a quick buck off the tourists there happen to be Muslims, if you’ve noticed that.

The point is that Ram is worshipped by thousands of Indians (Hindus) – by the way (not that it matters), I’m certainly not one of them – and they believe, rightly or wrongly, that Ram was born at the place where the Masjid once stood. They should be proved wrong. And don’t try to argue that Ran never existed. You will only be asked inflammable things like how do you prove Mohammed, or Christ, or whoever, existed, and there’s no end to this sort of thing. Let’s get this over once and for all, and get on with our lives.
2. Don’t you think that remark about Hindus building and removing pandals anywhere and everywhere was deliberately offensive? It’s obvious you have no idea about Hindu practices! And there’s a vast difference between destroying a temple that existed (supposedly – that’s what the excavations are supposed to prove or disprove) from about the 11th century at least to a makeshift pandal that is meant to be dismantled immediately afterwards. I could have reminded you about the tazias that spring up everywhere before Moharram but I don’t think it’s relevant – nor could I descend to that level of discourse.
3. These worshippers, as you call them, have existed before the Prophet Mohammed himself, and certainly long before 1993. Ram has been worshipped in India before the Greeks came. Look up contemporary Greek chronicles about Alexander the Great’s invasion.
4. I’m no supporter of Uma Bharati or people like her, but remember also her interview on Aaj Tak with Prabhu Chawla some time back in Seedhi Baat, in which she said that those who demolish places of worship are neither Hindus or Muslims but simply demons. This may of course be a political statement, and probably was. But let’s not jump to conclusions about what she said and did just because she’s a Hindu fundamentalist.
5. I don’t know whether Muslims will vote for people who promise to rebuild the Babri Masjid, but it seems that political parties who depend on their vote believe that they will. I do agree that there will be a number of Hindus who will vote for those who promise to rebuild the old Ram Temple at Ayodhya, but many more will vote on grounds of performance in other spheres.
6. If the Hindus didn’t want peace there wouldn’t any Muslims living in India now.
7. What “decision” are you thinking of? Migrating to Pakistan or wherever? It’s statements like these that cause mistrust and suspicion of Muslim intentions.
8. (a) What made you think that all Hindus welcome astrology in the educational curriculum?
(b) Astrology is not a compulsory subject in any University where it’s been introduced.
(c) The objection to madarsas is not the backward-looking education it imparts – which even Islamic theocratic states like Pakistan admit – but that they are only too frequently used by enemies of the state to sow discord and disaffection in the minds of Indians, who also happen to be young Muslims. What is the connection between suggesting that astrology be introduced as a vocational course and opposing the way madarsas are abused?
9. It seems you’re trying to justify cross-border terrorism by Pakistan on grounds of the post-Godhra Gujarat riots. This should be music to the ears of Narendra Modi and others of his ilk. Why do you think the riots happened in the first place? And why do you think the riots were so severe and so prolonged? Why was there so much of dereliction of duty by officials at the time? It wasn’t simply political pressure. There’s hatred of Muslims in Gujarat for reasons obvious to me (and apparently not to you). Why do you think Muslims are being asked to apologise? These poor Muslims, for no fault of their own, are being forced to pay the price for statements and actions of their co-religionists, who can do all this with impunity because they believe that they are safe. Which they are. No-one has dared to do anything about them because they can claim to be political victims. What happened in Gujarat is shocking, terrible, and there can be no two opinions about this, or any excuses. But what provoked it, and I’m not talking about Godhra alone, is never referred to by Muslims. Why?
10. Are you being deliberately dense – and it’s obvious you’re also being deliberately offensive - when you talk about Hindus making an animal their mother? Don’t you know that for Hindus the cow is a symbol of the generosity of God, that she represents God, and that she is called a mother because of her many gifts to human beings? Grow up! Hindus don’t think of the cow as a substitute for their own mothers! There has to be a difference between a symbol and what it symbolizes. It’s really so sad that an apparently educated Indian, no matter of what religion, could be so ignorant.
11. What’s wrong with the Prime Minister expressing his personal beliefs about eating beef? How is that offensive to Muslims? Does he stop them from eating beef? (Remember that the demand for banning cow slaughter comes from the so-called “secular” Congress.)
12. The Mughals weren’t a colonial power from the time of Humayun onwards, because they were born in the Indian subcontinent, and many of them had Hindu blood. You shouldn’t call people like Akbar, Shahjehan or even Aurangzeb colonial rulers.
13. India didn’t become an Islamic state during Mughal rule for the simple reason that there was no India in the modern-day sense of the term. But the Delhi Sultanate (under the Mughals) was certainly Islamic in some ways at least – it imposed the jezia tax on Hindus, and stopped them from riding horses, and so on. Not that it matters. In spite of every attempt India remained obstinately Hindu because Hinduism is an inclusive way of life and welcomes every way of thinking into its fold. (Or used to, before the politicians got into the act.) This is what worries Indian followers of religions like Christianity and Islam, because they want to retain their exclusive identity.
14. India doesn’t need constantly to remind itself that it is a Hindu-majority state – everybody knows it is, everywhere in the world. It’s basically the so-called Muslim leaders who seem to have forgotten facts. A little bit of introspection about the role of political parties here – the Leftists in particular - would help. This would also help to explain why the Hindus feel as much at siege as Muslims.
15. The demand for excavations of sites which Hindus claim Muslims destroyed temples to build their own places of worship would have stopped long ago if Muslims had said, “Yes, the mosques were built on destroyed temples. But we didn’t do it. Why should we have to suffer for whatever our ancestors did, or were supposed to have done? We can’t put the clock back. So why don’t both communities worship at the places both of us feel are holy?” But no, this wasn’t done.
16. Who told you Hindus didn’t protest when the Babri Masjid was brought down? The Shankaracharyas didn’t protest because they felt – no matter how wrongly (or rightly) – that a historic wrong was being set right. I personally don’t agree with this, because I feel that you can’t rewrite history, and, besides, two wrongs don’t make a right. If Hindus want to think of themselves as superior why should they drag themselves down to the level of vandals who think by destroying someone’s place of worship (even if it isn’t used) they are restoring the pride of their community? You’ll remember that most of the protests at the demolition of the mosque were (and are being) made by Hindus.
17. There needs to be some thinking about why is it that some Muslims have to assert their Indianness, why they aren’t they regarded as being patriotic. And it’s here that statements like yours need to be taken into account. Surely all Indians – which means Muslims as well - want India to defeat Pakistan, and not just in cricket, because of the systematic way in which it has been attacking us, and the basis of our composite culture and society. Or are you suggesting that Muslims should support Pakistan against India because Pakistan is a Muslim country, and a victory for Pakistan is a victory for Islam? Bal Thackeray wins because of ideas like these. There are, and always have been, Muslims in the Indian cricket team who do the country proud. Certainly these cricketers aren’t anti-Islam just because they play for India.
18. Yes, I quite agree with you that nationalism and religion should have been played out entities in today’s globalized world. That should put paid to the existence of (a) Pakistan and (b) Pakistan-and-Islamic-sponsored terrorism in Kashmir, which has driven thousands more Hindus out of their homes and killed many more of them than Muslims in Gujarat. You should realize that the Gujarat riots weren’t a once-off thing – the wounds, real and imaginary, go deep into the psyche of both communities.
19. You can’t compare Sai Baba to Imam Bukhari, for the Baba never makes controversial political statements, nor are any of his ashrams havens for self-confessed Islamic terrorists who believe they should kill and destroy for the sake of their religion. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t make a careful inquiry into the Baba’s source of funds, his alleged miracles and misdemeanours, and so on - in the same way that those of Imam Bukhari, Christian missionaries and rightist Hindu organizations should be examined. But the Imam’s other, apparently anti-national, activities are quite another matter, and need to be tackled as well.
20. It’s amazing that you think of Muslims being underdogs. They aren’t. The poor ones are, certainly, just as all the poor anywhere – regardless of religion or community – are. It seems that you’re still living in the period where you could gloat over the glories of Muslim rule in India just because you’re a Muslim – they were top dog then and aren’t so now - and can’t accept the reality of a multireligious society, in which you just can’t ride roughshod over the feelings of other religious groups. When will you learn that others have feelings too, and many more of them have suffered at least as much at the hands of Muslims as Muslims have in a once-off situation in Gujarat? You know, more than half the Muslims’ problems would be over once they publicly accepted and regretted the harm their co-religionists inflicted on others. There are plenty of Hindus who continuously point out how terrible Hindu society is, and has been in the past; it’s shocking that Muslim atrocities in the present are only defended by, or received with a deafening silence from, apparently liberal Mulsims.

Think over what I’ve said. From the way you ended your article, it’s pretty obvious that you don’t want to accept any point of view other than your own, but it would be nice once in a while to recognize that others also have a right to their point of view, and that they may be more correct and logical than you. It’s hard for you, I know, but just try.