Hey Ram, What Have You Done to My Religion?

i think u nearly got this interpretation right, barring ofcourse for the predujice shown involuntarily against the modern face of societal behavior of india.

Ref ali87 #136

[Horray to south Indian pride....]

Do you know why I am so secure in my identity and you are so insecure?

That is because my forefathers BROUGHT their religion to the South Indians whereas your forefathers RECEIVED their religion from some Arab-wannabe.

It is always better to give than to receive.

I can`t make why Chowk highlights in sharp yellow the words like ass, cunt, dick etc... do they highlight because they consider them obscene or they like them so much and want our eyes to concentrate on them instantitly? It ambrassasing when you are viewing chowk page and someone sitting besides you look on your screen and sees these words highlighted. I have been asked about my obsession with such a dirty web site.:-)

ok so dick escaped to get the attenion it deserves this time.:)

Something for everyone; to read, to understand, to think about.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=29460&d=28&m=7&y=2003

How Personal Is the Law?
M.J. Akbar

Who said that Indian Muslims must “reinterpret the foundational legal principles in the light of their own experience and the altered conditions of modern life?” The chief justice of the Supreme Court of India, V.N.Khare? The prime minister of India, Atal Behari Vajpayee? The chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, K. Sudarshan?

The correct answer might shock some of the hard-liners who have become self-appointed arbiters of the destiny of Indian Muslims. This was the view of a philosopher-poet who took Mirza Dagh as his mentor, stirred Muslims as no one before had done with epic nazams like Shikwa and Jawab-e-Shikwa, received a knighthood in 1922, and presided over the Allahabad session of the All India Muslim League in 1930 where in his presidential address he proposed that “Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sindh and Baluchistan be amalgamated into a single state.” No one would call Sir Muhammad Iqbal a kafir. When he died in Lahore on April 21, 1938 the community honored him with a tomb in the compound of the famous Badshahi mosque built by Aurangzeb.

Iqbal elaborated in his seminal analytical work The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam: “The teaching of the Qur’an, that life is a process of progressive creation, necessitates that each generation is guided, but unhampered, by the work of its predecessors, should be permitted to solve its own problems.”

It is a myth that Islamic law is not amenable to reinterpretation. Islam has always been a dynamic faith, not a static one, and principles have been placed in context whenever needed. The oft-cited instance of the Qur’anic injunction against usury is as good an example as any. The Qur’an, which Muslims treat as the word of God, is unambiguous about this evil.

Verse 275 of the second Surah, Al Baqarah, begins: “Those who devour usury will not stand except as stands one whom the Evil One by his touch hath driven to madness.”

The next verse is equally specific: “Allah will deprive usury of all blessing, but will give increase for deeds of charity, for He loveth not creatures ungrateful and wicked.” The translation is by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, who points out in a note: “Usury is condemned and prohibited in the strongest possible terms. There can be no question about the prohibition. When we come to the definition of usury there is room for difference of opinion.” It is this “difference of opinion” that has enabled all but a thin fringe of Muslims to take interest from banks without feeling that they have defied a Qur’anic injunction.

Then there is Verse 38 of the fifth Surah, Al Maidah, on theft: “As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime…” In the time of Jesus, it will be remembered, thieves were crucified; and even as late as in the 19th century in Britain, you could be hanged for theft. No one in the Islamic world today insists on cutting off thieves’ hands. Time has created imprecision even in Saudi Arabia. If there can be reasonable reform without sacrifice of principle, then there can be reform in marriage and divorce situations as well.

Islamic law is based on the injunctions of the Qur’an, and the practice of the Prophet(pbuh) who was both a messenger of Allah and a ruler of men. But this canon has been subject to seven yardsticks: consensus, judgment, analogy, equity, public interest, custom and legal reasoning. Each of these is a parameter of change, without sacrifice of any basic principle. The principle is that theft should be punished, but both judgment and public interest rule that theft can be curbed in the 21st century without recourse to slicing off hands. The social purpose of law is to curb the evil, not torture the individual.

This is not the way the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, which has become the first and last word in Muslim affairs, sees either law or life. But before we proceed, where did it come from? What sanction does it have? Do its members get elected by any forum or by the Indian Muslim community? On what basis does it call itself representative? How is its executive appointed?

Judging by the way it behaves, it might seem as if the board has been controlling the destinies of Indian Muslims ever since Muhammad bin Qasim stepped into Sindh in 711. To discover the truth we have to step a mere 12 centuries forward.

In 1972, the late Qari Mohammed Tayyab suggested the formation of a lobby group at a meeting in the seminary of Deoband. A convention was held in Bombay on December 27-28, 1972 to establish the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), with Tayyab as the first president. It had an uncomplicated agenda: to thwart any effort to interfere, by either the government or the courts, with its interpretation of the Islamic law (or Shariah). In effect it meant that this body of clergy and like-minded politicians and activists would oppose any change, even if that change was beneficial to the community. It gave to itself veto rights on Islamic law; its continual slogan was “Islam is in danger!”; and its mission was to herd an insecure community into a vote bank that it would deliver to those who were ready to recognize its sole spokesman role for the Indian Muslim community.

So far it has held 10 all-India sessions. Its 41 executive members are not elected by Muslims, but inducted in the manner of a private club. It would be unfair to suggest that everything it has done is necessarily regressive, but it would be fair to say that this has been its broad thrust, as can only be expected of a body so heavily weighted by the influence of the clergy. Its attitude toward social reform is best summed by the position it took on family planning.

It is interesting that political parties ideologically close to the board, like the Muslim League, supported the imposition of the Emergency by Mrs. Indira Gandhi in 1975. But what might be called the “Muslim Parivar” changed tack when Mrs. Gandhi used the Emergency to push some overdue social programs like family planning.

At an extraordinary meeting held on April 17-18, 1976 the board declared that sterilization was haram or must be prohibited.

In all matters of family law the board has taken a male-oriented view. Its most dramatic success was the blackmail of an inexperienced Rajiv Gandhi over the Supreme Court decision in the Shah Bano case. The board mobilized Muslims and forced Rajiv Gandhi to deny a poor, ageing divorcee minimal maintenance from her estranged husband.

I dare say that if among Muslims only women for some reason were thieves, the board would have demanded that their hands be cut off.

However, the board has not suggested that Muslim thieves should be awarded the Qur’anic punishment irrespective of how Indian law treats non-Muslim thieves. It accepts reform for thieves, but not for divorcees. I find it appalling.

You would not of course expect India’s political class to point out any such inconsistency. That would be detrimental to its electoral interests.

One of the great tragedies of Indian democracy has been the manner in which secular parties — and I do not place sarcastic quotation marks around secular, because they are genuinely secular — have insulted Indian Muslims by handing them over to mullahs. They have thereby expanded a tendency into a pervasive fact. It is a travesty to treat Indian Muslims as single-dimension voters. As in so much else, this was first done by the Congress; but the non-Congress parties have been no better.

The Personal Law Board became a serious political player after Shah Bano. This continued with the Babri Mosque dispute, where it continues to dictate on behalf of the Muslims without any democratic reference to what Muslims might actually feel. It is perfectly possible that the overwhelming majority of Muslims might agree with the hardliners in the executive body of the board, but there is no methodology to determine this.

In fact, the problem with this dispute now is that it is in the clutches of the board and organizations like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (not to mention social arsonists like Parveen Togadia) who are determined to shape the future only on the basis of their limited agenda. India is under siege from their veto.

The tension between change, reform, tradition and law is a familiar dynamic of the last two centuries; it is a process that long precedes the arrival of democracy. Justice Khare’s judgment on the need for a common civil code reaffirms a principle laid down in the Constitution, but falters when it ignores the complexities of social change.

At one level the court has not forgotten the scars of Shah Bano, and nor should it. The success of fundamentalists in blocking reform in Muslim personal law is another instigation. But there are other issues that need consideration before the demand for an immediate uniform civil code becomes a battle cry.

All communities are as reform-sensitive as Muslims, particularly where tradition has generated vested interests. Hindu law itself is not as uniform as some reformists would desire it to be.

When is the law called an ass? When it has legal reasoning on its side, but is bereft of consensus, judgment, equity and public interest.

When a horrendous case of injustice is perpetrated in the name of law, as in the Shah Bano case, then you know that the time has come for reform.

But equally, it is the duty of society’s leaders to build consensus around reform. Of course when those in authority are not leaders then this become difficult.

Sir W.H. Sleeman is the much-vaunted British Raj officer who allegedly eliminated thugs from central India. I do not recommend his memoirs (Rambles and Recollections of an Indian Official) to those with high blood pressure; Sleeman is only another pompous windbag when it comes to “natives”. But he is extraordinarily perceptive about the subtleties of administration. He tells the story of Charles Harding, of the Bengal Civil Service, who in 1806 prevented the widow of a Brahmin from committing suttee. But a year later, her family prevailed and she was placed on a funeral pyre at Ramnagar, some two miles upstream from Benaras. As soon as the fire was lit, she jumped into the river; her clothes kept her afloat, and the current took her to the city where she was rescued by a police boat. Benaras was in uproar, and all the worthies suggested that the young officer return the widow to the pyre if he wanted to preserve the peace. Harding exhausted all the rational arguments, in vain. The crowd still bayed for suttee. Suddenly he had an inspiration. He had not saved the widow, he told the crowd; Mother Ganges had saved her. How else could she have survived without knowing how to swim? Her sacrifice on the pyre was obviously unaccepted to the river, or the Ganges would have received her.

The point was unanswerable. The widow survived. There is no substitute for persuasion.

In 1826, Lord Amherst asked for the views of seven European district magistrates of central India on whether a ban on suttee would be acceptable to the people. All seven said it would not. But when Lord William Bentinck did ban suttee a few years later, not a murmur was heard. The British Raj clearly had a motto: Just do it.

Arab News Opinion 28 July 2003

m_souza #134

This thread is wearing off rapidly, but I would suggest that you take a deep
breath, look at Nasah`s history of interacts and stop making senseless generalizations
about Indian Muslims and Pakistanis (and Hindus for that matter).

#57 by harimau on July 23, 2003 9:55am PT

Horray to south Indian pride.... by the way the traditonal madrasees kids now speak of in the ``impure Hindi`` as a status symbol!!!

Hyderabad was never Bhagyapuri It was refered to in a loose shorthand as Bhagyanagar after bhagyamati the lover of a young prince of Golconda which was a few miles away and across the river Musi.

Sambhar doesnt contain Garam Masala??!!! wow!!

Henceforth I will take a stick and beat anyone who dares to utter that just for your sake.


sorry to disappoint you in your pure Dravid dreams...

Neverthless contiune it keeps every one amused...

``I am sure I have more Indian Muslim friends than you have Indian Hindu friends.``
(M SOUZA)

now on that question I can beat you hands down, Mohammad Souza:-)

Nasah

Before getting agitated about a post that was not even addressed to you (because you are not a Pakistani but a patriotic Indian whose father fought during Independence struggle, I didn’t know), just go through all my previous posts and see for yourself that I have been the one to emphasize the similarities between India and Pakistan. I was the one to say that we are the same. Now you are telling me this?
“-- Indians and Pakistanis are same people –“…nasah, you may say this but do they believe this now. They say they are separate now. They don’t want to remember their Indianness.

My posts and queries were addressed to ferozk, a Pakistani. I really got such sane and convincing answers from him. At least he honestly agreed that there can’t be too close a friendship between people of two counties because this dislike, may I call it hatred, has been around for too long. But we can try nevertheless.

See…. if an Indian Hindu (like me) says that Indians and Pakistanis were one, that they are too similar and that Pakis have Indian roots then Pakis don’t like it and they defensively start disassociating themselves…total denial from their Indian/Hindu roots. They prefer to have Arabic roots coming from Ghaznavis and Ghouris.

But if some Indian for any reason decides to take a decision not to be too friendly with them, then also they have problem. OK, it’s fine if they have a problem. But nasah bhai, why are you shouting at the top of your voice. So much love for….. Maybe you can win over more Pakistanis in your anti-Hindu camp by defending them in all possible ways.
One day definitely the Pakistanis will get more and more friendly with Indians but SOME Indian Muslims would still be drenched in their protest against everything Hindu.

Ferozk told that he too realized it: “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.”
Read …. #117 by ferozk on July 25, 2003 9:04am PT #123 by ferozk on July 25, 2003 11:24pm PT and see how decently he has evaluated things unlike you…who is getting touchy for no reason

++ -- try to make friends with some Pakistanis-- and do mix with more Indian Muslims -- for decency sake work for Hindu-Muslim understanding -- not hatred ++
Can you think beyond hindu-muslim? Weren’t we talking about Indian–pakistani issues here? Or is it the same thing to be a pakistani and to be an Indian muslim?
And by the way, I am sure I have more Indian Muslim friends than you have Indian Hindu friends.

Re : Article

Nice introspective article dost-mittar ji

Regards,

Faruk

``Islamic personal law runs contrary to the modern notions of human rights. Its anomalies are obvious to anyone except Muslim males` Hamid Dalwai in his book Muslim Politics In India````(SARWAR)

Agree 100%.

Muslim Personal Law is a CURSE brought on by the bearded (and also some shaved) ones -- condemning my community to the dungeon of eternal backwardness --

the Shah Bano case indicates that the community for its own good -- must be made to swallow the PILL of Uniform Civil Code to cure its sickness of medievalism.

UCC must supersede MPL -- no ifs and buts....and sooner the better

``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.....``(m souza)

m souza -- why do you sound so pathetic? How old are U?. Is this the new Indian generation speaking? where do u come from?

Lad -- take the blinders off your eyes -- let the two kids play together --

what`s wrong with you? -- Indians and Pakistanis are same people -- try to make friends with some Pakistanis-- and do mix with more Indian Muslims -- for decency sake work for Hindu-Muslim understanding -- not hatred

and why do u say that Pakistani kid wants to play with the Indian kid because he is insecure in the West? -- that is so pathetic

that Pakistani kid is not insecure -- you are...

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

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

re: Dost-Mittar # 124

Yes. It would be a better subsitute but then again, both religion and nation states are about group identifications and organized power.

re: harimau # 125

That was harsh.

Ciao

For those who claim that stitched clothes are a contribution of the Muslims to Indian culture, here is something to ponder.

From http://www.himalmag.com/2003/april/lastpage.htm


The seat of power

If the president of the United States can go to an extended war in the doab of the Tigris and Euphrates without international sanction, then I too can rake up irrelevant matters and elaborate at great length. Such as on the male attire that is the Nepali national dress.

The top is called the labeda, daura or mayelpose. It is a double-breasted kurta whose flaps are battened down in four places with ties, in a diagonal across the chest. The bottom is the suruwal; the same as what the British named jodhpurs, it is skin-tight around the calves, growing to incongruous pleated proportions around the groin.

Both labeda and suruwal came to the middle Himalaya from Rajasthan, more proof for Kathmandu’s warrior-caste elite to trace its bloodline back to the desert out west. Rajasthan, home now to Pokhran I and Pokhran II, for a while did a brisk export of Rajput chieftains to the far corners.

The topi was already there, and at some point during the time that Nepal was never colonised by the Company Bahadur, the Western jacket arrived, to be called ‘coat’. The national dress of Nepal now comes in four pieces: the topi which can be dented and fashioned to create individual signatures; a most distinctive labeda top; the coat which completely covers whatever is distinctive about the labeda; and the suruwal, an uncomfortable bottom that sometimes comes with a full legged inner (bhitri). Way back in 1980, a Kathmandu dignitary visiting London was spoofed in a television programme as having arrived at Heathrow in his long johns.

In the sweltering heat of the tarai, home to some of the hottest temperatures of South Asia, civil servants have to suffer this double-breasted and jacketed nationalism. Dull and uncomfortable, the labeda-suruwal has come to represent the state and its functionaries, through years of authoritarian figures strutting about in it, large bellies accentuated by the unflattering fall of the labeda. There is more that is comical about the dress: when the male official goes up to a sofa on the podium, he has first to reach to his rear with two hands and flip the fall of the labeda up so that it rides up the back before he can make to sit. This is to save the ironing. Once the official is properly seated, members of the audience are afforded a grandstand view of the dejected sac of pleated cloth gathered between the legs.

The greatest challenge faced by he who wears the labeda-suruwal is the visit to the water closet is a secret. For who would want to share this embarrassment with the world? Let me lead you through the ritual step-by-delicate step.

First, park your topi in your coat pocket. Then unbutton your coat and shunt the two fronts aside. Turn the two front flaps of the labeda all the way up, and hold them there firmly with your chin against your chest. Loosen the injaar or drawstring and push the suruwal down. But remember to have both legs slightly akimbo so that you do not have the suruwal gathered at the ankles on the (wet…) floor. If a true traditionalist, you will have a bhitri-suruwal, and will need to repeat the procedure before you are ready to water the closet.

Life was never meant to be this complicated, and we wait for the great founder nation of SAARC to modernise its national dress. There is a lot at stake. Imagine a regional summit meeting at the Birendra International Convention Centre in downtown Kathmandu. As fellow (formerly colonised) South Asians zip in, zip down, zip up and zip out, the Nepali under-secretary in the ministry of foreign affairs is still only getting started with the first stage of the disrobing operation. Think of all the time spent away from the plenary and sub-committees.

Compute all the minutes spent struggling with the labeda-suruwal, and calculate an average two to three visits to the water closet on every workday. Multiply the minutes with the number of male civil servants in government employ, from the line ministries to the village development committees, and you will see how in the Himalayan kingdom’s development is retarded.

Let me assure you that there are problems aplenty with the other national wear of South Asia. One friendly neighbour’s male attire gives you a vision right up the inner thigh when a gentleman is seated. And as far as another friendly neighbour is concerned, here is what a correspondent from Lahore reports:

``oh man
well it’s called shalwar kamiz or shalwar kurta. if it’s not a shalwar, it’s pajama kurta. in delhi it’s called ‘pathan dress’. the water closet aspect resembles the Nepali challenge. The kamiz goes under the chin and then you untie the naala or naara. cousins who are born and bred abroad find the naala too much to handle and generally use elastic bands in their shalwar. which makes it easier to tug it down for a laugh. same for our foreigner friends.``

Perhaps we should all migrate towards trousers with zippers.

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

harish_hyd#104
``And by saying that as a Muslim you cannot participate or admire the religious rituals of another community, you are only seeking to convey a very rigid view of Islam, the view that has been used as a stick by the US and other countries to beat Muslims with. ``
I think that you expect too much from the member of another belief system. I dont understand why is his admiration, let alone participation, in your religious rituals necessary? Isn`t it enough that he lets you perform your rituals without objection or making fun of them? Does he have the right to ask you to admire and participate in his rituals, such as qurbani (sacrificial killing) during bakr-id, or even keeping his company by fasting during Ramzan? The best policy, I think, is live and let live.

ferozk#107
There is no disagreement between us. Just a different interpretation of the word ``threat``. I mean it in the same sense that the U.S considers Al Qaeda to be a threat. You seem to be using it in the sense of winning a war against India. In that sense, I agree with you.

Urstruly#100
``et tu dost? I didn`t know that you would also make a case against me by selective quoting. Why were the following lines missed? ``

No, I did not miss the following lines. If I misunderstood you, it was because of the juxtopositioning of the the two sentences. Here is your full quote:

``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.``

While the last sentence is of a mitigatory nature, it is qualified (`May be`), whereas the first two are without any qualification.
But now that you have clarified, I regret my misunderstanding.

re: Dost-Mittar # 89

Can Pakistan succed in any attempt in changing the status quo, with India using armed means?

The answer is an unqualified no !

Attempting to do so is one thing, but lacking the necessary logistics to sustain it to a determined conclusion is another thing. Again, Pakistan does not pose a threat to India in reality, but if you wish to credit it with a threatening cabablity, then please go right ahead!

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.

Ciao

re: M_Souza

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.

They are a different people and over the years, they have grown ingrained to their new identities. They may have been Hindus once, but are no more and to expect them otherwise, is foolish,

Like someone said before, none of us are a ideals of perfection and we all have opinions, which are flawed and to reason a flaw and hope to correct one based on a personal bias lends to a state of prejudice. What were your ancestors before they became what you are?

Ciao

Ciao

#99 by ali87 on July 24, 2003 7:22pm PT

First of you all, you haven`t understood the spirit of the article that I posted. But since you have brought up an issue, let`s discuss it objectively.

The problem is that some Muslims like you think it is the Hindu who expects them to participate in his rituals or accept it. The fact is that it is dictated by situation. India is home to diverse communities practising various religions, and to live in harmony, it requires that everyone of them make some compromises. It is not like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, where a single religion overwhelmingly dominates all other religions. And by saying that as a Muslim you cannot participate or admire the religious rituals of another community, you are only seeking to convey a very rigid view of Islam, the view that has been used as a stick by the US and other countries to beat Muslims with.

You say:

[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.]

And then in the same breath you contradict yourself by saying:

[Islam gives ample space for the Muslim to live with the fact that the other has a different religion.]

You cannot do both at the same time. You either tolerate it or don`t. There`s nothing like 50-50 or indifference, etc.

I come from Hyderabad, a city with one of the largest Muslim populations in India, and I have quite a few Muslim friends, and many of them regularly turn up for Hindu festivals and actively participate in them. One of them is so crazy about the prasad that is distributed during the Ganesh Chaturthi festival, he forces me to take him from pandal to pandal. That he accepts prasad doesn`t mean he accepts my rituals or even prays to my gods, it is just that he is sane enough to realize that there`s no harm in accepting the prasad as something that he likes for its taste.

The real problem lies in the fact that when people start believing more in the superficial aspects like preserving identities more while ignoring the core values like truthfulness and tolerance, intolerance and bigotry rear up their ugly heads. A perfect example of this is Pakistan. Intolerance there has now reached a point where Muslims there have started devouring each other (Sunnis and Shias, Sunnis and Ahmadis). Sadly, the same malaise is slowly beginning to afflict the Hindus too, what with the Ayodhya dispute turning uglier by the day.

From:

Recently I asked Mr. N.Khan a question. I found the answer in pakistan defence journal


Hope EX PAF`s can shed more light.
To:
Subject: Radar jamming in the ’71 War
Date: Sunday, June 29, 2003 7:33 AM
Dear Sir,

We have learnt so much about our wars with India through your esteemed journal. Many things which were classified or may be were just too unpleasant were pushed under the rug.

There is one aspect that does not seem to have come out fully and that was the apparent air superiority of the IAF on the borders of West Pakistan. Our unit was moving in broad daylight and some vehicles were straffed or rocketed on the road near Sakasar which is not close to the border. During the next few days the Indian jets were moving with impunity in the border area near Bahawalnagar. They flew so low that we could see the pilots faces and the insignias on their helmets. Ofcourse no small arms fire was opened per orders so as not give our position away. We really wanted our air force to show up as we had heard about the spectacular stories of 65.

After the war was over I came across a professional aviation magazine published in Europe.The magazine had a lengthy article on the Indian aerospace industry and among other things it gave details of the fact that Russia had provided a number of AWAC s to India and these had jammed the Pakistani Air Force radars. Thus our air force was ineffective in deploying their fighter planes. If I remember it said that these AWACs were flying along the border on the Indian side and were manned by Russian crew. Please keep in mind that Pakistan had no AWACs. I wonder what are the views of your readers on this. I understand that a good part of our air force was held in reserve for the possible launch of a major army offensive, however, it still does not explain about the disparity of our air performance as compared to the 65 war.

Most truly,

Major (Retd) Mumtaz A Malik
Virginia, USA

---

#75 by nasah on July 23, 2003 9:15pm PT

You don`t have to be so annoyed. If people categorise you as `them` then what can anyone write. Nobody has to bug off by what you wrote.

``.....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

Why can`t Indian muslims say that they have lived in India for centuries and only few hundred years ago they changed thier religion and even after embracing another religion they are Indians still. Why can`t your soul belong to India as against some Arabic land. You are an Indian so you didn`t bring mughal things from outside.

Aryan theory is a myth. Hinduism was started in India and not some foreign lands. It developed in India, all its books/scriptures are Indian and has been there in India for a longer time than any other religion. Even Indus valley civilisation had `rudra` and other seals. So, no comparisons should be made.
But doesn`t matter. Isn`t it enough that you are Indian whatever your religion maybe? If Indian muslims had not made contributions--gardens etc, does it mean they would have had lesser rights, are they lesser Indians?? Why do you wnt to become `them`... why not become `us`

Will write more

re: how liberal is Islam?
Ibn Warraq, critic of Islamic fundamentalism and author of a recent book ``Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out`` sheds some light on the topic:
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=313900
Here is an interesting statement from the article:

``Ibn Warraq: Well, yes and no. I think one of the paradoxical results of greater education – in fact, if you look at the composition of the various Islamic fundamentalist groups in modern times, you will see that the most tolerant Muslims are not the ones who are educated, but the uneducated people in the countryside, the rural poor, who don’t actually know precisely what is in the Koran, since they cannot read the difficult Arabic. Islamic fundamentalism is very much an urban phenomenon of people who are educated, or able to read the Koran and take it very literally.``
The interview with Ibn Warraq:
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=313900
Ali, Urstruely and others, take note.
Sridhar

re:#99 by ali87
There we go again. Islam is a peaceful religion. It gives space to other religions. Only the Indoos are all bad.
You do not have to convince us. YOu need to convince yourself first because half the world does not believe you. I am one of the few who goes on harping the same tune that Islam is for peace but some of its practitoners are bad. But that word ``some`` now has to be eventually replaced by the word ``most``. Islam just does not seem to tolerate the other view point and that is the genesis of all problems.
Sridhar

et tu dost? I didn`t know that you would also make a case against me by selective quoting. Why were the following lines missed?

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.


I regret that

#2 by harish_hyd on July 22, 2003 7:20am PT

No.. what you are pointing to is not the hope but the actual despair prevalent. The hindu belives that accepting all kinds of worship is a way of life and sees no harm in adopting the conveinent creed/faith/ritual according to time and situation.
Thus he keeps alluding to this again and again this is also the part of the problem.
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. Your hope will be in vain if you dream of Muslims becoming like hindus and particpating in your religious acctivites.
Your thinking that if Muslims reject your religion then necessarily there has to be conflict. This is your thinking and it is wrong.
Islam gives ample space for the Muslim to live with the fact that the other has a different religion He need not start admiring your religious rituals to give you the space, right and accomodation to follow your religion while he follows his.
Stop thinking along the lines that a muslim has to once in a while participate in your religious rituals or consider it right. He will be going against the very basis of his religion if he particpates in your religion or considers it right.
But that does not mean that he cant accpet that you choose to follow your religion no matter how wrong it is from Islamic point of view. He can live with other religous people accord them respect, work with them, do business with them, particpate in their life as long as it does not concern religious acctivites and be fair,Just and honest in his dealings with people of other religons.
Your line of thinking(which many hindus think is part of the solution)is also part of the problem(albeit not the whole problem)

Hey religions, what have you done to us? While totally disagreeing to current trends in Hinduism, Muslims as minorities are not going to be pleased. They are not happy across the globle, from USA, Europe, Nigeria, Uganda, Russia, China, India, Philppines, you name it. They are failing to reconcile with the changes in the world order (political, economic, social, cultural, scientific and technical) of the last several centuries that began with the industrial revolution and enlightenment in Europe.

Muslim are not going to be pleased by the world around them unless they change their world view. As I pointed out in my last post that appeasement is the worst thing for a backward community anywhere in the world. Indian constitution should not have endowed special status and laws for any group of people, in order to be color-blind and religious-blind. The family laws should have been secular humanist and not different sets of laws for different religions.

Telling Muslims over and over about the great contributions Muslims made in certain areas is one of the worst thing. First it is actually a baggage for most of the knowledgeable Muslims of native origins. They do not see their ancestors making any contribution in these areas. Moreover, no matter how good it feels to be granted patent on Taj Mahal and loved by non-Muslims, it also opens Muslims to criticism and hate for bad things Aurangzeb, Abdali or many others did. By refusing to accept any credit for gardening, music, Taj Mahal etc, descendeants of the native converts are also aloof from any discredit.

Realities are sometime painful to accept but accpeting now is better than keep hanging on to glorious contributions of few as Muslims. Bengali Muslims contributed to Bengal and Panjabi Muslims contributed to Panjab in the mostly village culture that existed through most of out hisotry. These illiterate masses have nothing to do with the intellectual achievements of people associated with the ruling classes. The examples of mausoleums in Multan or Bengal are also the creation of the appointed ruling Afghan, Persian or Turkic Central Asian classes. First Panjabis to rule Panjab happened in late 18th century by Sikhs, similarly Bengali ruling elites were non-Bengali Persian speaking Muslims.

General Montgomery was a Panjab born British General. If Afghans, Persian and Central Asian Turks are forced upon us to be proud of, why not force Montgomery on us much more easily than Alap-Tageens and Subak-Tageens. No way Jose! The fact is neither Taj Mahal nor Aurangzeb for us Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and most of the Muslims of India. It is in their interest to come clean and honest and detached from the extremes of the Muslim rule over subcotinent. To me, personally, Taj Mahal is not even as precious as dirt of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro in terms of pride and respect. It does not mean that Taj Mahal is not a masterly achievement of a group of Muslims. It is without a doubt one of the best monumnent of human history. The contribution to Urdu language is much more diverse than Taj Mahal. Still, Bengalis, Tamil, Balochi or Keralite Muslims can not advance this as their contribution.

Muslims are local just as rest of the population of subcontinent and must be treated as natives wherever they live. In return, Muslims should not brag about contributions of Muslim ruling classes because they open themselves to hate and criticism for th wrongs done by these rulers and, moreover, it is dishonesty. They should not demand special treatment on family laws because that lumps them as distinct people of subcontinent bound by common social structure and culture. The fact is that mere belonging to one religion and not culture or society do not make them as one people.

They should better participate and contribute to the cultures and societies of south India, if they have not contributed satisfactorily as yet. It is never late to wake up and take pride in Tamil, if they are in Tamil Nadu. Imran Bhai and Sohail Bhai from Lahore are no going to help them. Don`t senf your kids to Muslim Urdu schools when Tamil are so proud of their heritage and learn English and skills to contribute and succeed. Otherwise what happened in Gujrat can happen to them also ( I don`t mean to say that riots in Gujrat were caused by Muslims remaining aloof from Gujrati culture). Being a minority, don`t give excuse to hate mongers and fundamentalists to prey on Muslims.

Urstruly#94:
Quote from your post#59:
``Some religions are inherintly intolerant of those who are differnt. Hinduism is one of them. ``

No. But I thought Musharaff has the patent on all statistically loaded statements.

``99% of Pakistanis are peaceful`` ``90% of Pakistanis support me`` etc.

How do you know it is 99.99%? Maybe it is 97.1% or 99.45%. :)

I don`t believe that 99.99% of any Indian community are completley patriotic.

Dost

I did not say that Hinduism is an intolerant religion. Please read my post again.

Ref stuka #86

[Harimau:

``I have no doubts in my own mind that 99.99% of Indian Muslims feel this way. It is that remaining 0.01% that has been poisoned by false propaganda ``

You finally sound like Musharraf. Where did you get the percentages from? :) }

Why? Do you believe that Indian Muslims are less patriotic than other Indians?

#40 by dost-mittar

``Their leadership is now in the hands of bearded mullahs who look like they are coming out of the 18th century; they offer greater resistance to any reform than Bangladeshis or even the mullahs of Pakistan.....``

I hope that Muslim Indians throw the influence of bearded Mullas away for the common good of other Indians and also for the Muslim Ummah in general. I don`t know why but in whatever region Muslims have stuck to Mullas, they have failed to progress and develop. Iran may be an exception. The slow rate of development there under theocracy is attributable more to USA`s opposition and economic boycott rather than their own inefficiency. But Mullas of India and Pakistan are definitely incompetent for running the daily affairs of todays world.

Like you, I have high hopes from Muslim Indians if I take their success indicators in the USA. I see their next generation going into technical areas and being very successful. Also, I hope you don`t mind my sharing that, most popular Islamic Evangelist come from Muslim Indians stock. There are many examples.

harimau #79

`` Tut, tut, tut. While factually true and coldly clinical, that last sentence will tag you in the minds of Pakistanis as one of the billion Hindus wandering around with a machete in hand and killing and maiming any Muslims that you come across.

You must remember that Chowk is populated by military, political, religious, economic and sociological analysts who are as good at these things as the Pakistani military is.``

The reality is that most Indians are busy with economic survival to care about the nonsense from arm chair analysts.

Romair#71:
I do not think of myself as either Nehruite or Gandhian. I have an eclectic approach in these matters, based on an empirical analysis of `what works`.
I do believe that an individual`s human rights should supercede national sovereignty. Fortunately, the world also seems to be more accepting of this view. Even when nothing is done about what is happening in places like Congo and Liberia, the TV broadcastes of suffering, bleeding humans, does not let you swallow your food without a tinge of guilt.
I also believe that all groups have a right to maintain and nurture their distinctiveness. But I also believe in a stable world order and I do not believe that every disgruntled group has the right to build its own separate `dhayee eent kee masjid`.
With regard to the house analogy, it depends upon what you call a house. You think of Kahmir as a house, Indians think of Kashmir as part of their Indian house.

Urstruly:
Despite the title, I do not think that the Hindu religion, per se, is intolerant. Indeed, the worst of the fanatics, the shiv sainiks and the Bajrang Dalis, never quote any Hindu scripture to advance their agendas. Because they can`t. I am not aware of any Hindu religious or semi-religious texts, even the hated Manu Smriti, which can be quoted to incite hatred against people of a different faith.

Inquirer:
``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. ``
I also think that an apology by both govts. for the crimes perpetrated against the minorities will go some distance to heal the historical wounds.

tahmed, banjaara:
Thanks for your comments.

ferozk:
``India has no threat from Pakistan and those who think such, are delusion about the comparative reality between India and Pakistan. ``
I cannot fully agree with you on this. Pakistan does not accept the status-quo between the two countries and also considers it legitimate to use non-peaceful means to change the status quo in its favour. As long as this situation continues, this threat is not a delusion despite the millitary advantage India may have over Pakistan.
And while the safety and security of her Muslims is for Indians to ensure, it would be unrealistic to expect Pakistanis, even you, to be indifferent to their lot. However, the best approach for Pakistanis will be to adopt the attitude you have suggested. Any shedding of tears on behalf of India`s Muslims is likely to act as Juda`s kiss as far as this problem is concerned.

harimou#47
``Why do you all cry about the rise of Indian Nationalism?``
Me? Never!
``Why do you call it `Hindu` nationalism? Why is it not a secularist movement?``
Because Hindu nationalism and Indian nationalism is not the same thing. Please see my post to Madani.
``Do not people of all faiths in India want the country to progress?``
Where did you get that idea?
``Why is it that not a single person, Indian or Pakistani, has applauded the overthrow of the Sheikh Abdullah dynasty in Kashmir?``
I did! I dont blame you for not noticing it. Unfortunately, it is not mandatory for chowkies to read all posts of dost-mittar:-(.

veeresh#44
``What are your, and other inter-actor`s, views on the implementation of a common civil law regardless of religion, in India?``

I think that the framers of our constitution messed up big time on this issue. They should have implemented a civil code right then. And one should not blame Muslims for this. They were too shocked from the trauma of the partition and did not have the strength then to raise a protest on this issue. In any case, the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly that I have read show that this issue was discussed at length during its proceedings and that the representatives of the minorities actually supported a uniform our civil law. But Nehru (maybe under the influence of Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad) supported separate civil codes, perhaps in a misplaced attempt to provide a sense of security to the Muslims of India. I think he would have encountered less opposition to a uniform code from the Muslims at that time than he would have from the Hindus, whose civil code was revised more drastically.
But that was then. Now, I think this has become an issue of prestige among Muslims. I still believe in a uniform civil code but I also think that a lot of ground has to be prepared among the Muslims by their own progressive elements before it can be implemented without major opposition from the group which would be most affected by the changes.
Incidentally, people usually think of civil code in terms of polygamy and alomony, but it also affects other areas. Back in my civil service days, I realized that Muslim immigrants to Canada had a great difficulty sponsoring their adopted children to Canada. The Canadian High Commission in Delhi would not accept their claim as legitimate as they were not supposed to have adopted children under the Muslim Personal Law.

TAhmed: I had emailed you a week back or so. Didn`t you get it??

Harimau:

``I have no doubts in my own mind that 99.99% of Indian Muslims feel this way. It is that remaining 0.01% that has been poisoned by false propaganda ``

You finally sound like Musharraf. Where did you get the percentages from? :)

ahmadmadani:

I would agree with you if you call it an Indian ``Ummah`` rather than a Hindu Ummah. They celebrate equally the achievement of Muslims like AR Rehaman, Azim Premji, Sania Mirza or Kalam as they do of Hindus.
But there is also a sense of new awakening among Hindus. I do not think that even this is a bad thing if it remained a positive force; without this awakening there would have been no consensus about the removal of caste barriers to which even the BJP now subscribes. What follows is a personal, poorly informed, speculative opinion and hopefully, someone else will throw greater light on this:
I think that a thousand years of being ruled by non-hindus created a sort of defeatist, inferiority complex among the Hindus, especially in the North. Losing their land and their adherents to stronger, proselytising, agressively monotheistic religions of Islam and Christianity, Hindus themselves started to view their religion as weak and backward. Ironically, the reawakening was led by some Europeans who discovered rich philosophical thoughts in old Hindu texts. During the laissez-faire period of the British rule, there were Hindu renaissance movements like Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj which tried to ``modernise`` Hinduism. They argued that the multitudes of gods and goddesses in hinduism and the many rituals were, in fact, a facade and, that in its essence, Hinduism too believed in an abstract, almighty God, and was therefore at par with the Abrahamic religions. They did this by referring to the Vedas (which no one had read, anyway) which, according to them, empasised the unity of God.
Hindus are now beginning to shed this feeling of inferiority. They are realising that while their religion has shortcomings, others are not perfect either. They are prepared to deal with thir shortcomings but are not prepared to accept others as superiors. They are also concerned about the steady loss of their adherents to the proselytising religions and are not prepared to yield further ground without a fight; hence the more muscular form of the religion that we see today.
To the extent that this new awakening adds to people`s self-esteem and confidence, I am all for it. But I draw the line when this positive self-esteem turns into a negative one of hatred towards the others. This is what this article is about.
Hope you are enjoying the monsoons. I remember that when I was a child we would go out in the rain, singing ``raba, raba meenh vasa, saadi kothi daane paa!``. I pray for ``daane`` in everybody`s kothi.
And bon voyage! Hope there`s Internet wherever you are.

Can`t understand why the people of India and Pakistan think ``Islamic Invaders`` and ``Cunning Hindus`` are the villains of our history ... what about the Brits ??? (Only Nasah ever blames them here ... and right you are sir!)

17th century India was close to dominating World Trade through the most wonderful product of medieval India - it`s textiles ... and then the real villains, British Colonizers took India through force of arms and proceeded to exploit it ruthlessly (and destroy it`s industries) till it reduced one of the richest nations of the world to the grinding poverty we are still trying to climb out of today.

Compare to China and Japan, specially Japan who were able to keep the Europeans at arms length and simultaneously educate themselves about their society and technology, and to achieve their own industrial revolution and transition to representative government.

An Industrial Miracle in a Golden Age: The 17th-Century Cloth Exports of India
http://iref.homestead.com/Textile.html

excerpts ...
``What matters is the extraordinary situation that existed in the early 1680s when, as seems quite clear, a collection of simple and undernourished brown people in an exotic country managed to pull off an industrial miracle. They had already succeeded in eliminating most of the local textile industry in the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Now they had come within an ace of displacing even the powerful and traditionally successful textile makers of Western Europe. They had in fact done something that had never been done before. For the first time in history, a manufactured non-luxury product made in a single country was on the verge of dominating the consumer markets of the entire world.``

``One could probably find still more explanations for the earlier industrial success of India: an outstandingly flexible financial system, organizational methods that involved a much greater rationalization of production than in Europe (where weavers as late as the 1700s often still spun their own yams, dyed their own cloth, and even made it up into tailored clothes), and entrepreneurial attitudes among the merchant classes which were at least as strongly developed as any such attitudes in Europe. However, I will not get into such topics here. It is enough to emphasize once again the extraordinary fact that India in the 17th century came very close to controlling most of the world`s textile markets, and that the explanation was by no means as simple as their embattled competitors claimed.``

``Would it not have been most logical to predict that free trade would eventually triumph, that the superbly efficient textile makers of India, in tandem with the heavily capitalized East India companies, would eventually overwhelm their European competitors, and that Indian capitalists would then mechanize their mills and move onward to the improvement of their (already highly regarded) iron and steel industry?``

``It is in fact one of the more tantalizing and least recognized might-have-beens of history. If things had worked out only slightly differently, the Industrial Revolution might have taken place in India. We could now be living in a world where Indian tourists complained constantly about the squalor of England and where Europe and North America would be underdeveloped quasi-colonies whose main function was providing raw materials for the insatiable factories of Bengal and Gujarat.``

``Among the reasons why this did not happen were the high quality of 18th- and 19th-century European armies (which eventually seized the main Indian textile-producing centers and thus found a noneconomic solution to the problem of unfair competition) and the surprisingly open attitude of European textile manufacturers. As pointed out earlier, these manufacturers had been thoroughly frightened back in the. 1670s and 1680s and so had lobbied hard for stringent controls on Indian imports. When they got the tariff protection they wanted, however, they seem not to have succumbed to the normal tendency to relax into old and inefficient ways. Instead, they initiated a major, long-term program of research and development.``

msouza:
``They are the Hindus who lost a lot…their plenty, almost everything.. lost their religion……these Hindus who are no more Hindus because of the outside religion, these Hindus who are now Muslims….they are the ones who lost the most but they are the ones who don’t hate the invaders … rather hate themselves(Hindus)…Not only they hate their previous Hindu selves but also defend and love the invaders who wronged them the most…for these very previous Hindus (I mean muslims) have become THEM for the current Hindus``

...But they do not consider it to be a loss, so this loss is okay with them if not with those whom they rejected.
In my opinion, while the quran does teach people to reject their parents` ``false`` beliefs and approvingly refers to the example of Prophet Abraham in this regard (a new religion can`t grow by saying ``hain aur bhi duniya mein mazhab bahut achhay!), it does not ask them to give up their cultural heritage. If you notice, neither Iran, nor Turkey nor Egypt gave up their cultures. The Indian converts, however, adopted their new rulers` culture for the same reason that Macaulay`s children adopted the English culture or the reason why many people, including some on chowk, equate modernisation with westernisation.