Hey Ram, What Have You Done to My Religion?

There are two main developments that indicate some sort of solution is about to occur. The recent visit of Maulana Fazl must have surprised the pants off everyone in India. It was productive, since it shattered another one of the myths that have been created by the Indian media, and allowed the Indians to see, their ``Chief Jehadi`` up close. Most Indians, probably have come to the conclusion, he is not the Neandrethal he is made out to be. He said all the right things and made all the right moves.

He is the most conservative religious leader in Pakistan (not counting the violent ones like SSP leaders). And his party, alongwith Jamaat-i-Islami are the biggest supporters of Kashmir freedom, and probably the biggest thorn in India`s side, in Kashmir. He must have gone with Musharraf`s blessings, and must have come back with Vajpayee`s. He met everyone, BJP, APHC, etc. :

Also, Jamali is into aerobics, which means he maybe ready for a big trip to India.

I think Kashmir is going to be divided according to one of the solutions of the Kashmir Study Group in the USA, led by the Kashmiri CEO of Ethan Allen furniture chain. An independent/jointly controlled Valley, with a few border areas. And Pakistan gets its Kashmir, and India gets most of Ladakh and Jammu. This would be my solution. And it is in line with the voting patterns in Kashmir.

After that, Indians and Pakistanis are going to forget all these differences. And there will be quite a bit more economic co-operation. I say this on the basis of my day to day experience with Indians and Pakistanis. Once Kashmir is solved, all other problems will dissappear into thin air. Since there aren`t really any other problems, to begin with. If there are, then I would like someone to highlight them to me.

---

1. Exchange of non-papers on Kashmir division soon

By Zia Iqbal Shahid

BRUSSELS: Western capitals have received positive but informal signals from India and Pakistan indicating their willingness to launch serious negotiations on the option of a possible division of Jammu and Kashmir on religious lines, European diplomats told The News here.

The diplomats expect that India and Pakistan would shortly exchange ``non-papers`` based on their respective perceptions on the doctrine of a possible division of Kashmir on religious lines. Western capitals are confident that this option would help both the countries in evolving a solution, based on the lowest common denominator, to the Kashmir imbroglio by engaging themselves into structured bilateral dialogue once they agree on the basic parameters. (The News, Pakistan) http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/index.html

2. Prime Minister to join aerobics to shed obesity

ISLAMABAD, July 26 (Online): Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Jamali has decided to resort to aerobics to tone down weight in order to keep him fit and smart.

The Prime Minister Secretariat has also invited tenders through national daily for supply of aerobics machines.

The exercise related equipment advertised in the paper include master jogging machine, automatic folded, jogging machine manual, massager set, massager belt, power master and speedo-meter exercise cycle for toughening muscles.

Sources informed Online that the exercise machines would be installed in the Prime Minister house.

The premier will make use of these machines to keep him fit in discharging his official and political obligations and coping with the difficulties he has to face in daily movements due to obesity factor. (Pak Tribune)

---

I think Vajpayee should send a gift of a few StairMasters. It would be a nice gesture.

Ref ferozk #123

[Shankar can explain this much better than I ever could and hope he is lurking some where to shed some light on this issue.]

Shankar went to India to attend a conference of witch doctors to augment his ``skills``. He is too busy now making up for lost revenue.

You guys honestly believe that that idiot can help anyone? If so, you need an exorcism and it could be gotten cheaper from a pir in Pakistan.

ferozk#123:
I agree quite a bit with you but in the context of Indo-Pak and this article it would be more appropriate to substitute ``nation`` with ``religion``.

re: M_Souza

Thank you! I was glad that in a manner I could help you. As to the Indian Muslims, you have very right to be concerned about them and you should love your country.

I am also sorry that you had to have a such a rude awakening, but I was coming to this conclusion nearly three year ago. The generation of partition was the best one to bridge the gap, but there was so much hated that they got swept up in it. The generations, which followed were taught to hate and hated without knowing why and in the process, went their own ways. Too much distence has opened up and you could be right and I am maybe wrong and the gap can seal itself one day. Anything is possible, but I do not think it will happen in my life time. It may happen in the life time of those who see each other without the tag of being an Indian or Pakistani and simply as one alike.

My friend, if you are really serious about having people identify with their past, then you have to think of a way, which transcends the artifical divisions of nation states and ignores the logic of nationalism. Nation states and nationalism are man made creations and they seek to impose their artificiality by eroading the natural ties, which bind a people. Like you, I love my country and as long as the love for a country is all comsuming, the people will remain as subordinates to the fallacy of falsely created distinctions.

You have develed into a serious, still uncharted, territory. I do not have the answers you are searching for or seeking to hear. All I can do, is say you are asking the right questions, but the people whom you asking are not ready for the answers. Group identification and nationalism serve the same ends and it is as old as the Romans who taught the British the dictum - divide et imperia - divide and conquer. The identification you seek means to renounce the last 400 years of diplomatic history and the global balance of power based on the notion of nation states as the principal actors in the world. It means questioning the very premise of power and those in power; and those who benefit from power, will not tender in their appeasements to you so easily.

What you are asking is not a reversal to the past and reestablishing a lost link, but it is about breaking free from the shackles of denial and admitting that there is much which is common than there are dissimilarities. Hatred, which is so common on Chowk, based on national complexes, is nothing more than a rationalization to justify one`s lack of courage to go beyond the obvious.

Hate establishes our identies and it reinforces them and we hate for diffferent reasons, but one reason is common to both of us. Indians may disparage Pakistanis as Hindus, who converted to Islam and may hate us for that and we may hate you as Hindus, because you remind us what we once were. It is a simple idea and the idea is this: you admire the person you wish to be and you hate the person, who reminds you of what you are!

Shankar can explain this much better than I ever could and hope he is lurking some where to shed some light on this issue.

You can hate me and that is your personal choice and I can hate you and that is my choice. We can both hate each other, but we should not ask, why the other hates us back if we are incapable of walking in the other person`s shoes. I am by choice a cynic and by habit a skeptic, but even I have to ask how long can this hate and denial can be sustained. Hate is exhausting and denial is morally draining and soon, it will all end. I have no utopian dreams for the future, but I have not lost hope, because when all is gone, only hope keeps the flickering embers of promise alive. Hope is the alpha and the omega of our existence and hope, generally prevails over time.

Ciao

Ref veeresh #120

Were there any AWACS in 1971 anywhere in the world?

Boeing`s website on AWACS (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/infoelect/e3awacs/index.htm) says ``In service since 1977, AWACS has earned the reputation as an international keeper of the peace in operation with the U.S. Air Force, NATO, United Kingdom, France and Saudi Arabia.`` I don`t believe the Russians were technologically ahead of the US in that arena. If they had been, Iraq would have had AWACS aircraft to defeat the US-led invasion in 1991.

As regards Major (Retd) Mumtaz A Malik`s letter, I think he was trying to assign blame to either the Pak Air Force or trying to prove (non-existent) Russian involvement on India`s side.

Thanks ferozk sahib

You have helped me make up my mind.
I have a child in my close family who has Pakistani classmates. Now, one Pakistani boy is being too friendly to our Indian boy, feels close to him and says that Indians and Pakistanis are very similar and were one country not long ago. He seeks help from the Indian in studies too. The Indian boy helps him more than he helps other class fellows, justifying that after all we are the same, Indians and Pakistanis. Pakistani boy is also sort of against the westerners, mocks at them but tries to relate to Indians.
Now seeing all this, I am a bit confused. So, this could be just for his own insecurity in the western world that he associates with Indians.
I feel like advising our Indian boy not to be too friendly with Pakistanis and to keep a distance because deep inside their hearts, Pakistanis just don’t like Indians and he could be in for a ride. But of course, I couldn’t get myself to say this to a child. Now, I will. I feel Indians should not be too friendly with Pakistanis and that is the truth. We should face it.
Just like you said, it is simple “You cannot force people to adhere to their Indian past. In many ways, you hate us because we are here and we hate you, because you are there! It is this simple.”
So far as Pakistanis are concerned, whether I dislike them or not, I still have to decide. But I have no attachment whatsoever with them and no desire to have them associate with their Indian past. We are different countries with totally different systems..

But Indian Muslims? Yes. What they do and what they think has a direct bearing on India. I love my country hell of a lot and have a right to be concerned about it or at least from an opinion if the Indian muslims try to disassociate with India, repeating their foreign origins.

Hi AhmedMadani # 105 . . . on the issue of Russian operated aircraft in 1971, I think your source was being rather economical with the truth. Sure, armed forces equipment and training in India largely was and is from Soviet bloc/Russian sources. As for AWACS in 1971, I don`t know whether the truth about some . . . uhhhm . . . unconventional methods will ever be open domain, but please be aware that large numbers of Indians especially those in Signals/Communications, from various parts of India, trained in the USSR, would perforce communicate with each other in a peculiar Indo - Russian patios (dialect??) which included some words from some of the South Indian languages. This was fairly unintelligble to others. Shades of this ``dialect`` were used again in the `80s in the course of the Iran-Iraq troubles . . . and can still be heard in places like the Persian Gulf where large numbers of elderly Radio Officers of Indian origin can still be found on the airwaves.

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

Urstruly:
Further to my #116
I forgot to mention the most potent factor of all: the cold war. During the cold war, the West found a natural ally in Islam against the godless communists and, especially, the anti-Western Pan-Arab nationalism represented by Jamal Abdel Nasser. They were quite happy back then to see the progressive Islamic forces defeated by the fundamentalists. Of courst, there is a new game in town now - same players, different teams.

re: Dost-Mittar

You were right, I was using the military yardstick, but if your intention was ideological, then I can see the error of my ways. :)

Seriously, Pakistan does not pose a threat to India in tangible terms; the equatations are all wrong. Ideologically, we are messed up and if the fear is based on this theme, then you have a valid concern. However, Pakistanis are in denial, but soon they will realize that it is against the odds. The change will happen, but very slowly.

re: M_Souza

My advice to you, sir, if you wish people to associate with their Indianess, issue them Indian passports and get over this problem.

Mr. Souza, we are different people and have became different over the years and though I agree with your idealism, I think it is an idividual choice. You cannot force people to adhere to their Indian past. In many ways, you hate us because we are here and we hate you, because you are there! It is this simple.

I am Pakistan and that is my identity. My ancestors were Hinduistanis long before there was an India under the British. I have no idea when my family became Muslims; your guess is as good as mine. My connection with India is nostalgic and maybe historic and cultural. That is the extent of it. I am, a product of my environment and being such, I cannot be anything else even if the two nations rejoin as one! I am willing to admit to my Indian roots, and others are not. This a judgemental decision based on personal prejudices and it in no way lessens the other person.

The present generation of Pakistanis have had no direct contact with Indians and we have many misperceptions about you as an Indian, like you have about us. Hate is not so common as ignorance and sadly hate feeds on ignorance. When we claim and fight to prove ourselves better than the other and force others to what we think; when we became what we beheld, we are no better than those whom we blame.

Ciao

Urstruly:
Sorry, I did not respond to the main point in your original post, namely, ``As a matter of fact religion is rapidly becoming a relative agent in the almost all third world.``
I am not sure if I can agree with that statement. Third world includes most of Asia, Africa and Latin America. In Africa, North Africa is more a part of the islamic Middle East and is similar to that part in its thinking. South of North Africa, religion is not a very potent force, except in the Muslim part of Nigeria. Africa is still divided more among tribal than religious lines. In Latin America, I have not seen any indication of religion as an arbiter of people`s fate in any country.
That leaves Asia. In East and South East Asia, most of the countries are Buddhists and religion again is not an important agent. The exceptions are Malaysia and Indonesia where the Saudi money is trying to change a more tolerant (promiscuous?) Islam into a more puritan Wahabi version.
That leaves us Middle East and South Asia. Here, I think the primary agent has been the fervent in Muslim countries. While there are many explanations of these, I would point out a few in chronological order:
-Creation of Pakistan in the name of religion
-Creation of Israel which sits like a dagger (literally on the map!) in the Arab world and the consequent sense of humiliation in the muslim world
-Oil crisis and the creation of sudden wealth in the gulf countries. The large number of students who came from these countries to the West saw what they thought was a moral degradation of the West (you have covered this `degradation` quite well previously in your articles and posts) and went back vowing that they would not let this happen in their own countries. They thought that the best way to fight this decadence was to go back to Islam.
-Last but not least, the Iran revolution. Mullahs came to power in Iran not because the people were more religious than elsewhere but because the Shah had closed all other avenues of protest. Masjids became the focus of protests against the Shah. They got the support of the bazaaris and the leftist mujahideen students to come to power, and once in power, being better organised, they were able to devour the bazaaris and the leftists.
-Salman Rushdie contoversy

Pakistan became a ready-made arena for both the Iranians and the Saudis, with the Americans backing the Saudis against Iranians. Back then, Shias were called the ``fanatic sect`` of Islam and Saudis the tolerant mainstream (go figure!). Pakistani ground had already been made fertile by the nascent vicotry of achieving a country on the basis of religious identity and then by winning the fight against Ahmedis. Zia`s being at the helm made it an unbeatable combination. I need not go to the history since then as it has been throughly hashed and rehased at chowk.

Now to India and Hindu intolerance. Saudi money played its part in India too and contributed to the growth of obscuranticism in India. And there was the growth of Sikh extremism in Panjab represented by Bhindrawale, with the clandestine support of the powers that be in New Delhi. Hindus saw their leaders catering to the vote-bank politics wrt minorities and started indulging in a kind of me-too fundamentalism. Consequently, Hindu political forces like Hindu Mahasabha and Jan Sangh which always had a marginal presence in Indian politics, suddenly catapulted centrestage in the form of the BJP . My article covers the rest.

Two more points:
-I have never seen so much religiousity among the Hindus as I see now. In the North, at least, religiousity was common only among the lower and lower middle classes. Not any more. Religion, even obscuranticism, has creeped up in the upper classes, with an unprecedented rise in the number of godmen and holy men and women, jagraatas, kathas, and yaatras to Vaishno Devi, Amar Nath, Tirupati, Char dhams ( to be fair, some of these places are also set in picturesque locations, I don`t mind visiting some of them myself!)
-The nature of religiousity also is changing. Hindu religion seems to be becoming more homogeneous across India. A generation ago, nobody in Panjab celebrated Ganesh Chaturthi (the elephant nosed god) and nobody outside Panjab and Rajasthan knew about Vaishno Devi or Karva Chauth. Now they have become national property, maybe due to the influence of Bollywood films.

Ref ferozk #107

[Disagree with me all you wish, but the history of the last 57 years with the caveats of 1948-49, 1965, 1971 and 1999 proves otherwise.]

By the same logic, Charles Manson could plead innocent saying, ``Except on Aug 9, 1969, I never killed anybody.``

Ref m_souza #103

[``.....now here is one Muslim who WILL SAY -- IT IS NOT -- IT IS NOT HINDU`S INDIA -- INDIA IS HIS -- INDIA WAS HIS -- AND INDIA WILL ALWAYS REMAIN HIS -- he FOUGHT for it -- his dad FOUGTH for it ``

I will answer elaborately next time. For now, I will say why do you keep saying your dad fought for it. Why do Indian muslims and pakis believe so surely that thier ancestors came from outside. Why do you look for your roots outside India. Why do you say your dad fought for it. Maybe he didn`t. Maybe he was just another Indian like many other religions in India, just converted...]

I don`t think you understand.

When nasah (Hasan) wrote that his Dad fought for it, he meant that his Dad fought for India`s Independence from the British, not that his forefathers fought on the side of invaders and won India for themselves.

Persons like Hasan`s father must be held in the highest reverence by today`s Indians. We are where we are today because of him and millions of others who sacrificed their lives and livelihoods in the cause of a Free India. If we don`t, there is no difference between us and people on the other side of the border who are brought up to believe that the British simply walked out of India because of Mr. Jinnah`s constitutional (and polite) conversations with Mountbatten over a glass of port and cigars.

Hasan has paid for his father`s ways by way of having a poorer start in life than if his father had pursued a career. That is far more than can be said of you or me.

You owe Hasan an unqualified apoplogy.

#106 by ferozk on July 25, 2003 1:11am PT

and ali87

I think that best answer to your questions is those Muslims, who hate Hindus do so, because they are no longer Hindus and do not consider themselves as such. They hate, because they no longer identify with the Hindus and too many generations have passed to have kept any tangible links with their Hindus ancestry. Whether that hate is justified or not, is for you to ask them and decide and not for me to comment upon.

---

Thanks for the reply.
So Muslims feel they can hate the Hindus. They have no more of association with their remote Hindu past and they feel very different now. Good. Let it be. Makes things easier for Hindus with no strings attached.

As ali87 wrote, ``First you have to accept that the Muslim will not be able to particpate in your rituals or hold them dear. That goes against Islam``

All this simply means that Muslims have a right to dislike Hindus if they feel like and also because Islam has very diffrent teachings compared to Hinduism so muslims have to isolate themselves from idolators as there is no God but Allah as per Quraan.
That simply also means that if at any tiem some Hindus decide that they don`t want to care for Muslims, then maybe that is even more justified, after all that hapened in history.
If people following Islam feel their religion is superior and so they can look down upon other religions adn rituals, then they should be prepared to accept the same from others too. Every religion has some strict principles. Let Hinduism also be stricter now. No more participation in Eids and no more unneccary rejoicing over multicultural festivals. After all what is common between bakr-eid and vegetarian diwali or holi

ferozk, your quesation: ``What were your ancestors before they became what you are? ``

My ancestors were Hindus always so far as I know, for the last seven gereations are recorded, I know. And let us suppose ...just suppose they were Greeks or Persian or something else 4000 years ago(not that they were), now at least I don`t go on harping about Greece or Greek culture. I am 100% attached to India. But Muslims go on harping heart and soul about Arabic lands and culture. Pakistanis who were Indians once, hate India and ridicule everything Hindu, just read their history books. Many Indian muslims feel more attached to muslim countries. That is the difference.
If people come from outside and settle in India, they have to accept India wholeheartedly. Otherwise one ceases to be an Indian. If they behave like a foreigner then they will be treated like one.

#82 by dost-mittar on July 24, 2003 7:45am PT

Thanks for the explanation.
It means that if Indian Muslims feel they are very different from Hindus or other religious groups. That also means that there is also nothing too wrong if Hindus also feel they are different. Because that is what Muslims want to be and that is what they feel they are, different from hindus.
And their too much of isolation is making them more isolated than ever. Then why do they complain? Isn`t that what they want? To associate only with Muslim brothers

re:#104 by harish_hyd
Intolerance has reached such a level in Pak that even good humanitarian gestures by India are viewed with suspicion.
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=313909
Sridhar