V. S. Naipaul

Finally a hindu has taken a stand like a true global citizen.The moslems should take their `oppression` sob story and put in the quran in the annexure,so that for generations to come they can keep on making terrorists out of failed citizens.moslems tak about tolerance yet wherever they are in some kind of majority they want out with the minorities to set up their own little islamic republic, sultanate or some retrograde caliphate.one cannot even possess a bible inside the `HOLY` city of `MECCA` yet moslems expect to be allowed headscarves in a predominantly christian country such as france.

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

A RESPONSE TO VARIOUS INTERACTS

I think we need to examine the problem of ego. Some of the responses are from an individualistic standpoint while some are ego-nationalistic. In both cases, the ego is at work.

History is beginning to challenge us to question the very foundations of history, written, as it often is, by the hand of the victor. Here, we`ve been examining the character of the Hindu-Muslim divide and whether Pakistan and its people will one day revert to India.

Lawrence Ziring, in his book PAKISTAN: THE ENIGMA OF POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT (1980) concluded that Pakistan could cease to exist in its sovereign nation-state form.

Tariq Ali raised the same question in the title of his book CAN PAKISTAN SURVIVE? and, to the best of my recollection, did not answer it.

Here are some considerations to ponder:

Who is a Pakistani? Is he an Arab? Or an Indian? Or something of both? Or neither? Are his origins entirely Central Asian? What influences has he imbibed from Persia? How is he different from the Europeans who ruled him for a hundred years? Or the Sikhs who ruled from Lahore?

Does a Pakistani have a distinct personality or culture of his own, or is it just a synthetic admixture of religious preferences and imitative choices? If so, for how long has he had this distinctiveness? If the Pakistani has a non-artificial distinctiveness, was it first created by the Partition in August 1947 or did it predate the Partition of 1947?

Was the Hindu-Muslim divide first created in 1940 when the Lahore Resolution was adopted, or did the roots of division exist before that? Was this divide created by the War of Independence, which the British call the “Great Mutiny,” or did it emerge with the advent of the first Muslim rulers, or saints, upon the areas now forming Pakistan? Or are the roots of the divide lodged even deeper and in the inner recesses of prehistory?

Has the Indus region, which comprises Pakistan, not had a natural and inherent urge towards separatism, and its own separate identity? Is the Indo-Pak divide not of primordial origin?

If we come out of denial, we can see the divide, of course, was there. I found confirmation of this in Aitzaz Ahsan’s fine book THE INDUS SAGA AND THE MAKING OF PAKISTAN (1996). This divide is real and tangible, says Ahsan. It is manifested in the shape of Pakistan itself, and what, in essence, is the Pakistani identity.

Which brings us back to: What makes Pakistan a distinctly separate and self-enclosed nation all wrapped up in the interpretations of religious fanatics and ignorant fundamentalists, and ruled by the whims of military generals and their henchmen?

When Mohamed Ali Jinnah declared August 16, 1946, to be Direct Action Day, Muslims were to relinquish all titles they held from the sirkar and demonstrate to the world their determination to have a separate Pakistan. No one, probably not even Jinnah, understood exactly what kind of direct action was called for. Violence was the result, and as with Gandhi’s hartals, blood flowed in the streets.

“For four days Muslims and Hindus slaughtered each other, with the Sikhs weighing in on the side of the Hindus. The exact toll will never be known,” writes Byron Farwell in his 1989 book, ARMIES OF THE RAJ: FROM THE GREAT INDIAN MUTINY TO INDEPENDENCE 1858 – 1947.

It is difficult to fathom what ails the average Pakistani today. Aside from being in denial, he is flustered from all sides by the forces and agents of change with his own self-righteous philosophy of uniqueness that is clearly out of sync with the reality of our times in the fourth year of the 21st century. That is why I wrote that Aug 14, Aug 15 and Aug 16 are, to me, grim reminders of the goriest form of human butchery on a scale never witnessed before, for which we use the social cocktail party circuit to indulge in idle prattle about what could have been, what might be, all far removed from the realities the world is witnessing – and yet we still blame the White Man for his policy of divide-and-rule.

Personally, I think we need to grow up. I say this because the ruckus such a subject kicks up is beyond belief.

Rashid Mughal

Corrections:
``The lady Head of the History department in QAU said jihad by sword was a Muslim tradition which must be TAUGHT to every Muslim child, that unlike Christians, Muslim children cannot be taught to turn the other cheek.``

``This is not the failure but one (possible) culmination of what was adopted INSTEAD``.

vertex #111
``Rather, the comparison is with those conservative whites in the states who think that what`s past is past, and all that matters in their relations with the `blacks` is the present.``

Actually, Americans even fought a civil war over the issue of black slavery. President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing full well that it would lead to his Democratic Party losing the South to the Republican Party for generatons.

The Americans liberals have earned their colors fighting the good fight.

``There`s no problem considering the Turkish Invaders who rode into the subcontinent as what they were: two-bit thugs with dreams of empire. Fine, some actually had their dreams come true. But they did start off as two-bit thugs... One not leave the box of Islam to call this spade a spade, despite what you and sagitarius think. ``

Re the ease of calling a spade a spade. The other day, there was AH Nayyar on TV, in a debate about curriculum reform with Minister Zubeida Jalal and two others.

He was being accused of being an American agent for recommending that jihad by sword and shahadat(maryrdom) be mentioned less in textbooks and jihad against poverty, ignorance, good health,etc be emphasized more.

The Minister declared that government is not taking out jihad by sword and shahadat out of textbooks, it is only substituting shorter surahs, which better describe such jihad.

A longtime Iqbalist and Urdu literary academic said if jihad by sword and shahadat were rejected then one would have to reject most of Quran and Iqbal. He said repeatedly AH Nayyar could have no reason to recommend such a thing except at the say-so of his foreign pay masters.

The lady Head of the History department in QAU said jihad by sword was a Muslim tradition which must be to every Muslim child, unlike Christians Muslim children cannot be taught to turn the other cheek. She said she was proud of the traditions of Qasim, Ghazni and Ghouri and she herself was a proud descendent of Mohammad Ghouri.

The compere Hamid Mir challenged AH Nayyar, are you telling us that Qasim, Ghazni and Ghouri are not your role-models/ heros?

Evidently, the liberal point of view is seen as a direct threat to state and religion.

``What we have is a resurgence in simple-minded politics emerging thanks to a failure of modern social/political relationships/paradigms and empowered ordinary joes taking up the fight``

Actually, as mentioned in my reply to pmishra2, in the case of Pakistan, it was NOT the modern social/political relationships/paradigms which were adopted. This is not the failure but one (possible) culmination of what was adopted.

pmishra2 #109
Thanks. Sadly, the Pakistan movement, with its surplus of `secure` and `modern` Muslims, could have, after 1947 afforded the space for a critical reexamining of positive and negative aspects of the subcontinent`s Islamic past. It chose instead to adopt a blind ideology of triumphalism vis-a-vis Hindus.

re:#92 by Chowk marshal
By the stadards set by the mullahs of today, Jinnah would not qualify as a true muslim. Consider this:
1. Jinnah did not pray regularly. He certainly did not pray 5 times a day
2. Jinnah regularly drank alcohol
3. Jinnah married a non-muslim
He however did have the interests of muslims in India and worked ceaselessly towards that end. He might have used wrong means (and i think bringing in communalism and hatred into politics to unite a disparate group of Indian muslims as he did towards the end of his life are wrong means) but there is no doubt that he firmly believed that a seperate country for muslims is in their own interest. If he were alive today, he would know how wrong he was.

Anyway, the transformation of a truely nationalistic secular Indian muslim to a communalistic muslim politician seeking a seperate homeland is baffling as much to me as to any historian.
Sridhar

sadna,

``If in a specific instance of history, scores of temples were destroyed, if thousands of nonMuslims were butchered or whole generations of communities shipped abroad as slaves, are these past actions to be celebrated in the modern context as the proud victories of Islam and those who did these things cited as modern-day role models for Muslims? ``

Let us be clear that that modern Muslims do not dwell on this aspect of their history (rather dishonestly I may add) when basking in their ``triumphalism``. There may be pride in how large our Moghul empire was, and a sense of accomplishment over this and that, however the more unpleasent aspects are always glossed over.

There is no comparison to those who would still think the Inquisition was the ``right`` thing. Rather, the comparison is with those conservative whites in the states who think that what`s past is past, and all that matters in their relations with the `blacks` is the present. Yet, American heroes galore were bonefied racists, or genocidal. Or the Brits who think their (white) forefathers burden was well carried...and of course resident house negroes (read: Dinesh D`Souza) who would testify to that fact.

There are the counter-weight to these types of course, and we see those in Pakistan and India as well. There`s no problem considering the Turkish Invaders who rode into the subcontinent as what they were: two-bit thugs with dreams of empire. Fine, some actually had their dreams come true. But they did start off as two-bit thugs...

One not leave the box of Islam to call this spade a spade, despite what you and sagitarius think.

``This is a huge handicap for the vast number of `liberal` Muslims who might wish to rework centuries-old social/political relationships/paradigms for the present day, ``

I don`t think the social/political relationships/paradigms that guide Muslim-non Muslim relations has remained fixed for even the past decade...this is an oddball claim. What we have is a resurgence in simple-minded politics emerging thanks to a failure of modern social/political relationships/paradigms and empowered ordinary joes taking up the fight. And in that situation, things regress to how they were a long time ago -what do you expect, when you circumvent the nation state altogether?

sadna #97 #104

Very well put. The real challenge is within islam and in its relationship to its liberals. So far there is no relationship; once a muslim publically espouses liberal views (e.g., Sharia should not be taken literally) he or she is viewed as outside islam and an apostate.

In contrast, within Christianity, most of the North European, Presbyterian, Methodist, COngregationalist, Unitaritian and other sects have developed very mature points of view regarding literal interpretation of Bible. Among jews also, conservative and reform jews completely reject literal interpretation of the hebrew bible. Yet these groups are fully accepted as Christian and Jewish. Many similar remarks apply to hindu sampradayas, who have rejected caste and have begun open initiation of all.

Re: jinnah, I have been around the block with ylh many times on this. I appreciate your direct quotation from original sources. Jinnah of the 40s was an open communalist no different than Narendra Modi or any third-rate hindutva hack. He may have been great guy before, he may have had his reasons for communalism (a tactic for dealing with these cunning hindus etc.) but communalist he certainly was. No worse than many other politicians, but certainly no better.

sagittarius #105
Thanks.
Carrying forward the example I cited earlier, if Christians still celebrated the Inquisition in Europe, the whole Western Christian world would be in a nasty ferment even now. While Catholic `Inquisition` in some parts of India is still upheld as positive, the Pope HAS apologised to the Chinese for events in the last 2 centuries. The Catholic Church has also apologised to Jews for collaborating with the Nazis against them. Mel Gibson belongs to a Catholic group which dissociated itself from the Pope`s apology to Jews, which explains a lot about Mel Gibson.

Let me clarify, I was not talking of Muslims questioning religion, exactly, rather Muslims questioning the traditional Islamic triumphalist interpretation of history.

If in a specific instance of history, scores of temples were destroyed, if thousands of nonMuslims were butchered or whole generations of communities shipped abroad as slaves, are these past actions to be celebrated in the modern context as the proud victories of Islam and those who did these things cited as modern-day role models for Muslims?

My thesis is, that Muslims will find it difficult to rework their own society/rework their traditional relations with other communities to suit the modern day, unless there are some Muslim intellectual/political movements which reexamine, even repudiate this tradition of celebration of triumphalism-at-every-cost.

Ref Romair #35

[At the same time, the bombing of the Bhudda statues pales in comparison to some of things done by the BJP in India. Destroying a statue is one thing, killing people is another. I don`t think it was religion that was telling anyone to do either. It was destructive energy channelized through religion, to carry out a political objective.]

So, it is okay for Islamic Thugs to destroy their country`s pre-Islamic hertitage -- not just their country`s alone; one must remember that the Bamiyan Buddhas were named a World Heritage site by the United Nations, celebrating millennia of human achievements across the entire earth -- as a political objective..... whatever that political objective is. Already Afghanistan had been under the jackboot of the Taliban for years and I don`t know what additional political objective was to be obtained by destroying priceless cultural artifacts.

But it is not okay for the BJP to destroy the Babri Masjid to achieve its political objective of obtaining power in India.

Can you please post a picture of yourself on Chowk with your tongue sticking out?

We all would like to see a forked tongue for real.

Bravo, sadna.

The Muslim -- whether s/he is a so-called progressive or a retarded fundamentalist -- has an inherent problem: S/he cannot question Religion. Period. There are justifications around what Allah said or forgot to say, and there the whole edifice of inquiry crumbles like a house of cards.

One dare not question the Word of God.

The prisoner wants to discuss and debate the merits of freedom by remaining in the security of the prison because Islam is terribly cruel to those who leave the fold in order to inquire, to question, or to find out.

It`s a big tragedy.

Rashid Mughal

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

I am disappointed with Naipaul`s support for BJP and Hindutva. After being so harshly critical about anything and everything Indian, ultimately he has decided to give the stiflingly narrow vision and mindless opportunism of Hindutva-vadis a free pass from his acid tongue/pen.

Of his books I have read only his India, A Million Mutinies Now, from which I recall his strictly factual (but sympathetic in effect) description of Muslim areas in Mumbai, giving the reader a sense the strong ghetto feeling prevailing among its inhabitants, at least at that time. So it is not as if he doesnot have the requisite sensitivity to human condition.

Anyway, coming to things like foreign invasions, wounded civilisations etc.

The fact is that a number of modern `Christian` and `Hindu` intellectual and political movements have to some extent accepted past atrocities committed in the name of Christianity and Hinduism resp.

A Christian can repudiate the Inquisition and still be a devout Christian. A Hindu can condemn caste atrocities and still be devout Hindu. Such `self-examining` movements have served to a large extent to set Christians and Hindus free to rework their religious/social/political tradition to better suit the modern day.

In contrast, it is hard to think of any similar modern `Muslim` intellectual or political movement which has accepted past atrocities that were committed in the name of Islam. What many nonMuslims might term as past atrocities are held up for this same reason as triumphs of Islam by tradition.

Unlike what Naipaul appears to imply, this is not a problem for nonMuslims as much as it is for Muslims.

This is a huge handicap for the vast number of `liberal` Muslims who might wish to rework centuries-old social/political relationships/paradigms for the present day, of which implicit/explicit acceptance of a troubled past is often a part. Liberal Muslims taking such initiatives have to do so outside the ambit of religious Islam, which makes them vulnerable and doesnot help ordinary Muslims enough.

Re: M.B.Z. Isphahani & various others

History repeats itself, and each time we end up paying a higher price without learning our lesson.

Let us not forget that Jinnah was a gin-toting, cigar-chomping Muslim. He even sported a monocle to grace his three-piece grey-striped London tailored suits before he made modifications to the shirwani and chust pajama worn by Nehru as a national dress for his Muslim Leaguers. He was more a Muslim by circumstance than he intended to be, but now, in Pakistan and in some Pakistani pockets in Britain, the United States and Canada, there`s a politico-religious movement afoot to elevate Jinnah to the status of a hazrat, to accord him some kind of sainthood that would put him on a par with Mahatma, because, in my view, it is felt that Pakistan lacks the kind of inspiring leadership that has given India the great Gautama and Gandhi.

These hazrat-people want to make political capital out of a helpless situation in the name of religious patriotism, I think, little realizing that the whole story of Azaadi is replete with machiavellian plots and subplots involving the gang of Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Jinnah, et al. They were all very ambitious men who brought out the best--and the worst--in all of us.

The rest is history.

The whole system of politics in India and Pakistan stinks to high heaven, made worse by the fact that Religion adds fuel to the fire in our daily lives and leads us to kill our own brother. That is why we are sitting in the comfort of the West and mulling over the dead past as if we are actually running those nations with our heady intellectualism. Somewhere in all this hotch-potch, we may see the truth of what Naipaul has so pungently fossilized in his books.

History boils the blood; Faith soothes the restless soul. History is a reminder of vengeance; Faith reminds us ``Vengeance is mine!`` saith the Lord.

What is the relationship of History with Faith?

How does all this connect us to Naipaul?

We have drifted to so many planets it is difficult to come back to earth.

Rashid Mughal

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