Hey Ram, What Have You Done to My Religion?

#29, Rsridhar; and #61,Dost-mitter:
rsidhar, I agree with you there is need for reformation of educational system in India.

It is essential that the education be transferred to Union list of responsibilities (and withdrawn from state list) and various states should be required to enforce union stipulations that are consistent with India`s secular character. The religious schools should be de-recognized and be required to be supplemented by secular eductional degrees before their graduates become eligible for government positions.

It is far from clear to anyone that the real battle is between secularism and fundamentalism. Everyone thinks that the battle is between different religions in India. This clarification is a must.

rsridhar:
I did mention in my article that Rajiv Gandhi`s appeasement of Muslim obscurantists made it possible for the charges of pseudo-secularism stick.
I too am a critic of the so-called pseudo-secularism. In my response to Interacts, as also earlier on Chowk, I have made my opinion known that unintended effects of the different attitudes towards majority and minority communalism far outweighed any positive intended effects. Nehru was presumably influenced by seeing in Germany and Europe the damage that the majority communalism (anti-semitism) could cause to a society and therefore much more intolerant of any signs of Hindu than of Muslim nationalism (for example, even in the 1952 elections, he was condemning a non-existent Jan Sangh in Kerala while not saying anything against a very potent Muslim League there). As you and others have pointed out, such actions built a subterranian resentment among Hindus. They were contained as long as the towering personality of Nehru was there. But after he was gone, all that was needed was a slogan and an issue to crystallise that resentment. Shah Bano provided the issue and Advani provided the slogan (gurv se kaho hum hindu hain!).

You have asked ``The author does not answer the question: what were the muslims doing all this while?`` This article is not about analysing the Muslim mindset. But why blame muslims for listening to their Mullahs than to the likes of Engineer, Zakaria and others? Who do the Hindu leaders listen to when they want to reach out to the Muslims? Dont they court the likes of Imam Bukhari and the Muslim Personal Law Board rather than the progressives? It all started with Mahatma Gandhi who was willing to make deals with the likes of Ali brothers and support the medieval Khilafat movement rather than deal with the progressive Jinnah. And it has not ended. The Indian leaders today, from Vajpayee down to the Sangh parivaar, are seeking the intervention of the Pakistani leader of Islamists, Fazl-ur-Rehman, to solve the Ayodhya problem rather than the Muslim progressives. Incidentally, this is the same Fazloo, who is widely regarded as the father of both taleban and various Jehadi lashkars that have created so much havoc for Indians.
If Indians want Muslims to be more progressives, their leaders should pay more attention to progressive muslims than the mullah brigade.

Harimau,

#47


This is what secularism is for our dost. No mandeer all right. no masjit (WHAT??)

When Hindooism is bad let us hit it.

When Islam is bad, let us give it a chance. Let us work it out. Let us give some time. Let them kill some more. We must listen. It is not Islam, but only few who are misplaced muslims...yada yada yada

The greatest lie this guys will do is when they say Islam means peace. Never you will find any one refuting when CNN airs this (why should they. It is a lie it is but it is useful)

Islam does not mean `peace`. It means `submission`. No one will have any guts to say CNN lied on this one. Politically incorrect for those who know.

Our dost will go every way to say what hindoos should do. I did not see one muslim blamed in this article. Only BJP. Never will he have guts to say what Islamist must do. No Mandir yes, NO MASJID (What? let us be good guys).

Our nation does not need a mandir. I totally agree. (But neither a masjid. Dost will never have guts to say that. He agrees on only Mandir part and blames every one on that). With 140 mil or whatever numbers we must be tolerent, should not we?

Between you and me, we need ..... (schools? roads??). We need to move forward with our own , come whatever their religion is.

Those who listen let us take them with us. Those who do not, let us show them their places for a change. Trust me, they will start listening


Ghatee

ULTI GANGA

Interesting article. I would say that a first from an Indian. I would like to address only one and the main issue discussed in the article that Dost raises ``why his religion has become so intolerant`` and more than that why it has become so important in the national politics.

As a matter of fact religion is rapidly becoming a relative agent in the almost all third world. One must keep in mind that when Europe adopted secularism or separation of state and church as a model of governance it took centuries of evolution of the process to take its current form. An important factor that we all ignore or overlook is that what Europeans did was through a logical series of step. Here is what I wrote in my article titled Justice for half a man, which elaborates on those logical steps:

`` These ideas (Gender Equality, Feminism, Secularism and Individualism in Western societies) emerged through an evolutionary process, which was the result of Western thought process and the social changes that span over centuries, beginning with
Crusades. At the time of Crusades the people of Europe were under the iron grip
of Church and a feudal economy. The Crusades impacted them both. First, when as
a result of Crusades Muslims lost their control over the Mediterranean seaway
new trade routes became available to Europeans and a mercantile class emerged
and trade based economy surfaced. Secondly, partly due to this economic change
and partly due to the interaction with Muslim societies, people in Europe
started demanding freedom from the clutches of brutal oppression of Church on
economy and doctrinal hold on personal freedom. Initially people’s struggle was
against the Pope and Church only, but when Church responded back in the name of
religion people eventually turned against the religion as well; and since Church
had such an overwhelming control over the lives of people they started
considering religion as the greatest hindrance to their well-being. The Church
eventually collapsed. This collapse had a very profound effect on economy and on
people as individual and as society [29].


The most profound effect of this change on the people was that they started
seeing economic freedom and personal freedom as two connubial and inseparable
concepts. Thus as the Capitalism evolved through a period of revolutionary
economic change between 13th and 19th century - formation of guilds of artisans
and merchants (12th -13th century); the discovery of America, Australia and new
trade routes (14th - 16th Century); establishment of colonies; the Industrial
Revolution (1750-1850) etc. - the economic theory evolved into such ideas as
that of doctrine of laissez-faire. This doctrine stresses that an economic
system functions best and secures the maximum well-being for the individual and
community when there is no interference by any (moral or governmental, sic.)
authority. Similarly, at individual level, what started as the guilds of
artisans and merchants winning immunity from feudal and Church dues and bonds
formed the core of individual freedoms [30]. But at the moral front man’s
eternal quest for a guiding compass, which was lost with the collapse of church,
gave rise to philosophers and thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, Mill and Voltaire who
tried to find a moral compass that on one hand must not include divinity and on
the other hand could keep the economic interests prime at the same time. The
unfortunate consequence of these ideas was that the `human being` was degraded
into `human resource`; a tool and mean of production; a commodity on which a
price-tag could be attached. That provided the necessary seed out of which the
concept of Individualism shoots out. ``

So the logical steps through which the Seculaism emerged were that first people started hating religion because of laters heavy handedness, second the political power of church/religion collapsed, third the religion failed the people both politically and in doctrine, fourth the anti-religionists got hold of political power and kept it and fifth the evolution of new replacement began.

In the context of third world, some very crucial steps in this logical process are missing. First of all an overwhelming majority of people does not hate their religion (India with its caste system is going in opposite direction in this regard); second there has not been any moral defeat of religion yet as the Christianity suffered and definitely religion has not been defeated politically because it has been a poltical non-entity so far (except in India where it it has become a force to be reckoned with for the past 12 years); third, other religions do not have as much doctrinal hold on people as the christianity had- the pope, the infallible church etc.; fourth the anti-religionists in third world got hold of political power not through a political process but only because they inherited power from their colonial masters; these people were advanced by their colonial masters because these people think and act like their masters; they had the same apathy and disdain for their fellow human beings as did the colonial masters had for their occupied people; so these people are rapidly losing ground as the disenfranchised people are being enfranchised thru slow but sure political process, in this case the religionists.

So in third world the process is running backward. At this the whinning of anti-religionists is that of retracted bitching and moaning and cannot and does not turn into a popular movement against religionists. Some religions are inherintly intolerant of those who are differnt. Hinduism is one of them. The recent genocides of Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and adi wasis attestes to that fact. May be dost is right that it is the people who have hijacked the religion that are bad and not the religion just as pope and his indoctrinated goons hijacked church, whereas jesus (pbuh) preached for tolerance.

Dost-Mittarji:
The objective of your article is commendable. It is true that the there has been an increase of intolerance among Hindus and its respectability. As you have already pointed out the ereason is partly political. Congress up to Indira Gandhi but not including her used to be a party of consensus. The major aims for the Nation had been defined and established by Nehru and they were rational objectives for the development of India as a modern nation looking out for the welfare of ALL Indian masses.

Subsequent to Shastri the Congress Party pounced on the minorities as a deciding vote for the retention of power. Many Hindus had realized that the widespread reforms of Nehru era had eroded powers of the upper castes and generally privileged people of the British Empire India. Thus the rational dvelopment of the vast masses was indeed hurting the elitists who had led the freedom movement and thus expected better conditions for themselves. They wanted a check of the rapid changes. This led to suppporting of BJP etc.

In early eighties the Muslims caught on to this power and started demanding stopping of traffic - necessarily, resulting in blaring of horns - around Masjids. This was routine in Agra where I saw it myself in one of my trips from US. The reduction of Hindu population in Pakistan from twentyfive percent to three percent was always in the minds of Hindu populace of India. Zia`s stupid moves to introduce Sharia laws in Pakistan and continuous support of Wahabism, Barelvi-ism etc. in India hardened the attitudes of those who were on the fence about strengthening of fundamentalism in Hindu People. The wholesale assasination of Zia`s company in Pakistan did not translate into a change from his nefarious and stupid policies.

The restrengthening of secularism requires not emphasizing of Muslims contributions. Rather it REQUIRES a joint declaration of India and Pakistan to assure the protection and promotion of minorites in a just manner. The first thing that should be done is that India as well as Pakistan - largely Pakistan - should declare their error of injustice to minorities. The religion and state policies should be separated officially. The control of politicians by party apparatus needs to be reduced both in India and Pakistan. Musharraf`s effort in allowing only educated people to stand in elections needs to be developed and enforced. Indians and Pakistanis need to learn about the responsibilities of a democracy not just the rights of democracy.

Ref pmishra2 #49

[You are quite incorrect to suggest that south does not have influence from these cultures. Architecture, cuisine, models of governance all were deeply influenced by the new arrivals. It is another matter that the south was mostly spared the brutality and violence of the invasions.]

Nope, on all counts.

Bharat Natyam survives as the purest form of dance without any influence of the invaders as Kathak might have.

Carnatic music survives as the purest form of music without the influence of any cauterwauling or ululating nonsense. If Carnatic music has today imported ragas like Yamunakalyani or Hamirkalyani, equally they have exported Hamsadhwani and Kalavathi to Hindusthani music.

There isn`t any garam masala in sambhar. If wheat was forced on the South starting with 1960 (because of the severe drought in India), that doesn`t mean we were eating tandoori naan back in 1450.

Our men and women didn`t wear the unisex salwar-kameez. Our men wore the dhoti and the women the sari.

The only architecture influenced by invaders were in those areas ruled by invaders: the Char Minar in Hyderabad (Bhagyapuri, if I am correct, is the original name of the place) or the Gol Gumbaz in Bijapur.

Despite Malik Ghafour`s invasion that came all the way south to Madurai (150 miles from the southern tip of India) and his sacking of the sacred Meenakshi Temple there, the South Indian kings did not stop erecting tall temple towers to proclaim their faith; but in the North where the thugs reigned supreme, even the kings of Rajasthan hid their temples behind mud walls.

Here is something about Malik Khafur:

``Kafur attacked the fabled city of Madurai in 1310. He won easily, because the then ruler, ironically named Veerapandiyan, lacked a strong army.

After capturing the fort, Kafur, true to type, wanted to destroy the age-old Meenakshi-Sundareshwarar temple at Madurai. One of his soldiers made a preliminary visit. He noticed the eight elephant statues around the temple (Ashtadig-gajas), the guardians of the cardinal and ordinal directions. A saintly old man was sitting nearby in ‘Siddhar sannidhi’, the meditative posture. The soldier began to question him about the temple and was told several stories from the Thiru Vilayaadal. One story was about how Shiva himself came in the guise of a Siddhar (mystic with healing powers) and fed the stone elephants sugarcane.

The soldier wanted to know if such miracles happened even in the present. Malik Kafur came to see the elephant statues for himself. The old saint casually offered him sugarcane and asked him to see if the elephants would accept it from his hands. To the great amazement of all, one of the elephants stretched out its stone trunk and ate the sugarcane. Malik Kafur was properly appreciative. ‘‘God is present right here!’’ he is reported to have said and ordered his ready wreckers to lay off. Miracle or Press Release? Was the eunuch bribed by the Brahmin custodians of the temple with a bunch of bagatelles from Meenakshi Amman’s vast jewel box?

Today the Left will try to project Kafur’s military campaign as an amiable social visit and his proposed demolition, as free home-improvement for the Divine Couple. The Right will insist that it was Lord Shiva himself who came by to save Meenakshi Amman’s temple. Inhabitants of middle ground will be torn. A nasty rational corner will incline to the buy-off theory. But since Kafur had won anyway, the tilt will probably be miracle-wards, with a forgiving shake of the head for Kafur, who let his better self prevail. However such goodwill-promoting stories will be retrieved only through growing Hindu self-awareness. It’s when you don’t know enough that you lack conviction and either Right or Left could phuslao you into messing up.``

Romair:
Thanks for complimenting me as being the only introspective Indian. But I have to disagree with that observation. Even going by the reaction to this article so far, most Indians seem to agree with the gist of it, so they must be introspective, as well. And I wouldn`t say that harimou doesn`t introspect, it`s just that his introspection doesn`t lead him to the same place as mine.

[Do I only support the wishes of Bombay`s Muslim rickshawwallas (because I agree with them) against the BJP, or do I also accept the wishes of Yasin Malik and Umar Farooq, even though I don`t agree with them]
I knew that you would bring Kashmir into it somehow or another:-). There is no such thing as tolerance without limits. Some rights of the individuals are constrained in all socieites in the larger perceived interests of the collectivity. I may want to dump my garbage on the street but my neighbours won`t allow it as it affects the entire locality. Indians have decided that their current international borders are inviolable and are unwilling to accept the wishes of those who want to rearrange them whether it is Kashmiri separatists and Mizoram tribals today, Sikh separatists yesterday or Dravidian separatists tomorrow. This is the political contract on which there is a very broad consensus in India which cuts across party lines.

I am not a Nehruite. I think several of the problems India has today (including Kashmir) can be traced to him. I think he also handled the communal question badly. A man like Gandhi with whom Hindu masses could relate could have changed their attitudes towards minorities better than Nehru`s approach. But Gandhi too did his share of messing up; after all, he is the one who gave more prominence to Barelvis and Deobandis than secualr Muslims like Jinnah and may inadvertantly have been the source of muslim orthodoxy not only in India but also Pakistan.

re: Dost-Mittar

Your comments were very educational. Educational in the sense that they offered me a glimpse into the fabric of the Indian thought on a subject, which is crucial to evolution of India`s future. You are correct that Pakistan made a tragic mistake by belittling its pre-Islamic past and because of that, we are at times directionless. A sufi poet once wrote that those who have no past have no future and to deny a past is to ignore the future. This one sentence, speaks volumes and could easily subsitute for Pakistan`s national history.

I have generally refrained from commenting on issues, which I consider to be internal matters of Indian politics and this issue, I consider in a similar light. There are times, when I make an exception and comment upon the contempory issue, when I see India making the same mistakes, which Pakistan made and mistakes I lived through and mistakes which were costly. The treatment of Muslims in India is a concern of the Indians, and it has nothing to do with Pakistan. Those Muslims are Indian citizens and I also hold the opinion that Pakistan does not have the moral right to act as the self proclaimed champion of the international Muslim ummah.

In this sense, I share your thoughts. The greatest threat to Pakistan is driven from its internal politics; politics, which were based on hatred and intolerance. India has no threat from Pakistan and those who think such, are delusion about the comparative reality between India and Pakistan. The damage, which the Indians are capable of doing themselves to India pales in comparsion to what Pakistan might wish. The worst that I fear is that in hating India, we will destory ourselves and now, it seems that Indians in hating Muslims and casting them as the scapegoats will cause damage to India. Indians` hatred for Pakistan can be understood, but Indian hatred for Indian Muslims, by identifying them with Pakistan is hard to understand.

Oscar Wilde once wrote that you destroy the thing, which you love and what you love, will destory you. These words of wisdom apply to both, Indians and Pakistanis. Not only will we destroy our nation in loving to hate one religious group against the other, but such a national hatred will also destory us in the end.

The consequences will emerge much later and the regrets may be sincere, but the water will have already flowed under the bridge.

Ciao

dost-mittar,
An excellent commentary on the rise and rise of communal forces. Chances of containing it in India are better than Pakistan for obvious reasons. Allah karey zor-e-qalam aur zeyadah.

sameerJB #25
“Two biggest group of Muslims of subcontinent - Bengalis and Panjabis - have nothing to do with the above contributions because they are Bengalis and Panjabis”

Starting with the Punjabi’s contribution to the muslim heritage I would draw your attention to the funerary architecture of Multan which is a beautiful blend of Tughlaq Shahi Turkic and indigenous Multani style which evolved during the 13th,14th century AD.The tombs of Bahauddin Zakaria and Shah Rukn-e-Alam are matchless in the muslim world for their stylized ornamentation with “Naqsh Kaari” “Kaashi Kari” and “Meena Kaari”. The Mausoleums in Ucch Sharif and Bahawalpur follow the same style. Similar work is found in the interior decoration of Humayoun’s tomb built in 1570 AD and the Taj mahal built in the 17th century. I am sure you must have seen the Sheesh Mahal inside Lahore Fort, the Mirror Meena Kaari is Multani in origin.

Interestingly, all these tombs followed the basic principles of the Funerary design.A square raised platform, enclosed within octagonal walls topped with a single dome. The use of “Char Bagh” style of landscaping was influenced by the Iranian Emperor Cyrus who is recorded to have planted fruit trees and flowering shrubs in a place called Pasargardae in the north of Shiraz, which became “Ferdous” in Persian and paradise in English language. And was specially perfected and patronized by the Moghals.

As for as Bengali’s contribution is concerned, please take a look at the Shait Gumbad Masjid of Bagerhaat.It is an uncommon blend of the indigenous and the Imperial Tughlaq Shahi architecture of Delhi.This is also the largest brick built mosque in the sub-continent. It was built in the 15th century by Khan jahan. It has fortress like high walls running around the entire structure with the main door reached by a flight of wide stairs. The main Prayer Hall of the mosque is covered by 60 squat domes supported by 77 columns. This is the only one of its kind, although the Satkheera Mosque is built in similar style but it has only 7 squat domes.
Let`s forget about the sub-continent which has a presence of over 400 million muslims, and we go to Spain, where from muslims have been out for the last five hundred years.However the muslim influence lingers in their music, life style and cuisine. The siesta is a must for any true blooded Spaniard as is the “Ole” which again is corruption of Wa-llah, to express excited approval.
You must be aware that miniature painting was introduced in Iran from the Chinese in the 11th-12th century, irani miniature themes changed slowly to Shahnama and other religious subjects under the patronage of great safavid rulers Shah Tehmasp and Shah Abbas. The same miniature was brought to India by Humayoun in shape of Ustad Abdus Samad and
Ustad Shirin Qalam. They introduced Iranian style of miniature painting, recording victories of the rulers, Akbar namah is illustrated with hundreds of such miniatures. It was however, the local artists who having been trained produced much of the work during Akbar, Jehangir and Shah Jehan`s reign. During this period, Rulers of Rajasthan patronised this art form,
infact they took it to its peak. The Rajasthan miniature painting retained the Irani treatment of the subject, but the subject itself went through a sea change. The most popular subject was the Life of Krishna. This art form was also influenced by the Pala and Jain miniature styles which were already existing in India long before Mughals brought the Safavid style of
miniature painting.
Apologies for the meandering post. I would finish with couple of verses from Faiz.

Dard-e- shab-e-hijraaN ki jaza kyoN nahiN detay
khoon-e- dil-e-wehshi ka sila kyoN nahiN detay
mitt jaay gi makhluq tau insaf karo gey
munsif ho tau ab hashr utha kyoN nahiN detay

These ``Muslim`` and ``Christian`` leaders then wonder about why the BJP is doing well. They only want the stop of Hindu communalism and are quite happy with the communalization of their own communities.

Communities divided on common civil code

PTI[ WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2003 05:52:07 PM ]

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court`s advocacy of a common civil code on Wednesday sparked fresh debate on one of the most controversial topics in multi-religious India, with opinions ranging from righteous indignation to cynical indifference.



While constitutional experts said that a uniform code was enshrined in the constitution, Muslim and Christian leaders opposed any such move as a violation of citizens` fundamental rights.



``It is unconstitutional and clashes with the fundamental right to practise any religion,`` S Q R Illyas, spokesperson of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), said.



``If the government tries to enforce such a code, we will fight it.``



The Supreme Court had, responding to a petition by a Christian priest, suggested a common civil code while striking down a law that does not allow a Christian to bequeath property for charitable purposes if he has close relatives.



A three-judge bench observed: ``A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing a contradiction based on ideology.``



Holding a section of the Indian Succession Act as discriminatory against Christians, the court said it violated Article 14 of the constitution that grants the right to equality.



Illyas said the apex court had in 1995 made a similar appeal to the government while cracking down on Hindus turning Muslims to take more than one wife. ``Nothing happened at that time, and it is unlikely anything will this time too.``



The court had ruled then that a man could be punished if he converted to Islam to marry a second time. The Muslim personal law allows men to take four wives without having to divorce any.



``But then prime minister P V Narasimha Rao had said it would not be possible without a national consensus,`` Illyas pointed out.



The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has long pushed for a uniform civil code, which, according to the Hindu rightwing, would remove disparities that gave Muslims unnecessary privileges and were exploitative to some sections.



However, the BJP was forced to drop the ticklish agenda in 1998 in the process of forging a multi-party coalition with a broad national programme.



The party now contends the uniform civil code is still in its original plan but cannot be taken further due to coalition compulsions.



The issue precipitated into a Hindu-Muslim rift in 1986 when the Supreme Court ordered the payment of maintenance to a divorced Muslim woman, Shah Bano.



Following widespread Muslim anger over the interference in their personal law, the government passed a law that had the effect of reversing the Supreme Court order.



Constitutional expert K T S Tulsi said: ``A common code is a directive principle of state policy and thus one of the constitutional objectives. It is the need of the hour.``



Tulsi felt it would strengthen India and protect human rights of everybody without distinction.



``Separate personal laws are an excuse of keeping communities backward, especially depriving women of even minimal human rights.``



But according to Dominic Emmanuel of the Catholic Bishops Conference of India, the issue is not so simple, especially for Christians for whom a common civil code is a mixed bag.



``We turn our face away on the issue of divorce, which is not permitted in our religion. But, say, if the government wants to control population, and decides that abortion should be legal, we will not accept that as it is against natural laws,`` Emmanuel remarked.



``There is no clear-cut way of seeing this issue. We really have to wait and watch what the move brings, if the government does implement it. As citizens of India we have to abide by the law of the land, but tomorrow can Sikhs be asked to shave their heads and wear helmets because the law demands it?``

first you beat us at i.t. and now this. i was just starting to console myself by thinking that pakis had indians beat in the humour dept with presence of ahmedmadani, along comes harimou to ruin my fun. damn. one up to the indians on this as well.

Harimau,

There is no contradiction in understanding the positive benefits of the interaction with muslim central asian civilization, while at the same time condeming and remembering the brutal invasions of north-west india.

You are 100% right to point out that not a single hindu/buddhist structure of any antiquity survives in North India, Pakistan or Afghanistan. Indeed, in Pakistan and Afghanistan almost no indic traditions survive at all !! All this in a region that was predominantly buddhist and hindu for over a 1000 years before islam. Pakistan and Afganistan had upto 20% hindu and sikh minorities upto the 40`s. We need to keep this in mind when dealing with certain aspects of Islam.

At the same time, the conquerors did bring new ideas and techniques. You are quite incorrect to suggest that south does not have influence from these cultures. Architecture, cuisine, models of governance all were deeply influenced by the new arrivals. It is another matter that the south was mostly spared the brutality and violence of the invasions.

dost mittar: Excellent article. And we expect no less of you :-)

I just finished arguing ;-) with urstruly on his article below, and found him incapable of either accepting (that would emotionally unacceptable) or rejecting (that would be intellectually impossible) some fundamental points I raised demonstrating the absurdities underlying his article. Mr. Urstruly simply ducked the issue, claiming he would get back with a response, which he has not done in a week now.

The problem of course is that such irrational and moronic behavior is not limited to a few people - I think about 5-10 percent of the population of both India (hindu extremists) and Pakistan (muslim extremists) is infected by this SAREs (South Asian Religious Extremism) epidemic. And the only solution is (a) danda - i.e. law and order, i.e. to prevent those afflicted with this epidemic from disrupting society and injuring others, and (b) quarantine - i.e. for the ordinary citizens not to get infected by the same disease. And this is something each individual can contribute to by keeping in mind the following lines from Kipling said: ``If you can keep your head, while all around you are losing their`s...then you are a man, my son``.

first you beat us at i.t. and now this. i was just starting to console myself by thinking that pakis had indians beat in the humour dept with presence of ahmedmadani, along comes harimou to ruin my fun. damn. one up to the indians on this as well.

SameerJB:
[The contributions you should have mentioned were to Indian nationalism, defense, secularism, movies and music during modern period and cultural contributions to the local cultures in the past]


I did when I said that ``the Hindu communalists must be confronted by the secular media, by highlighting the positive contributions of Muslim Indians to modern India.``

But this is not enough. Muslims are constantly being put on the defensive as ``babar ki aulad``. It is important to mention that some positive did come out of the historical interaction, even if the motivation was not always the noblest. Take, for example, the Muslim rejection of the language and script of their ancestors. The result was the beautiful language of Urdu. I think that the child is beautiful and love it even no matter how it was conceived. Same about tandoori chicken, Mughlai food (yes, our kebabs are better than yours!), and qawaali music.

And even the contributions of invaders, once they became the inhabitants of the land, are a legitimate contribution of Indian Muslims. Don`t Indo-Americans take pride in Khurana and Chandrasekhar even though they were first generation immigrants? My friend`s daughter, born in Canada, is quite prominent as Kathak dancer on the art scene here. Why can`t Indo-Canadians be proud of it? I am not asking to own the creation of Kaaba or the blue mosque of Baghdad but of the creations of Muslims in India, even if their ancestors had come from outside.

Re #38 by ahmedmadani:
Mr Madani, thank you for an interesting post. I had said something similar on another board a long time ago on Chowk - that ironically, Hindus have formed their own `ummah` through the creation of modern India (losing the parts that are now Pak and BD). They are united socially, politically, economically, militarily. This is exactly what the Muslim ummah has been dreaming about for centuries.