V. S. Naipaul

#32 # 33 dost-mittar

“Let us say that I am a Hindu, Ram Das……………………``followers to abandon their past histories, culture, and identities``, what is?``

That is like stretching it a little too far but then you are making a point to the person who equates an author’s observations to attacks on religions. Why is a religion so fragile that it cannot handle a little intellectual critique?
BTW,
Julaha = Ansari

Quereshi = Qasai- Gosht(meat) katna wala (only for people from UP. I think panjabi qureshi are not Qasai.
Syed = Hindu converts mostly around Delhi. Converted during the Aurangzeb period. They initially were called “Shah” and then became Syed. There are plenty of Syed in Pakistan who switched it to Syed after the partition.
Now there a few more that I know, ...would leave it at that for the time being!!!

Most of the converts in Punjab, upper Sindh and Baluchistan did not change their last names after the conversion.

Romair #33: ``As to your next question, I am not aware of anything is quran which requires someone to change his/her name upon conversion. Therefore, Naipaul`s explanation that this is merely a form of Arab colonialism imposed by the Arabs on the converts makes sense, no different from what Macaulay`s children did at a later stage in history. ``

I just wrote a long reply explaining there is no such thing as an, ``Islamic`` name. And, how, wherever Islam has spread, local names have become, ``Islamic`` names. Hence, I am not quite sure what kind of Arab colonialism Naipaul is talking about. The more I read people like Naipaul and Rushdie etc., on Islam, the more I start thinking that these people can make fools out of anyone, who has not studied Islam.

If there were Arab colonialism, then my name would have been Umair bin Abu-Hamza or something similar. Not Umair Raja. And the most popular movie in the history of Pakistan, would not have been Maula Jat. It would have been Maula ibn al-Shiekh Sayeedi min al-Riyadh. And person named Pervez could not be the President, Neither could a person named Bhutto been PM. And Mehndis would not be the biggest functions in Pakistan, and red wouldn`t be the most popular color in those marraiges.

Are you sure you visited Pakistan? :-)

Who knows maybe my great-great grandpa was an Achuut, and not a Brahmin. Maybe he converted to Islam, and converted to a higher-caste name, because he knew he was still living amongst Hindus, even after conversion. Maybe, it wasn`t Islam that told him to keep his name or to lose it. Maybe he kept it for practical purposes.

When people are quoting Naipuals of the world, and forming their arguments on Islam, while simultaneously stating that, ``I dont claim to be knowledgeable about the Koran,`` then I have to come to the coclusion that it is they have been conditioned to believe certain things about Islam, and easily willing to believe anyone who seconds their biases.

I have no issue with anyone critiquing Islam or its history or even present-day political Islam. But people should, at least, take the time to study the subject first, before forming such strong opinions on it. Forming strong opinions about something, based on the thoughts of like-minded individuals, without having knowledge of it, is the basic step in bigotry and prejudice.

This is primarily why I had always argued that Indians should first visit Pakistan, before forming such strong anti-Pakistan opionions, declaring every Pakistani to be a monster. If after visiting Pakistan, they were targeted/attacked by Pakistanis, I would accept their arguments. Their arguments would then not be based on what Indian commentators keep telling them, but on fact. However, now that Indians have finally seen Lahore and Karachi in their living rooms through cricket matches, I hope they have realized that they were more than a bit brainwashed.

Similarly, I would encourage all Indians to read the Quran, and not Naipaul, if they want to debate Islam. If they can put up a good argument from the Quran, then I will happily agree. But I have some issues with people quoting Naipual to make comments about a religion, and what it teaches. How do they know whether he is right or wrong, when they cannot cross-reference it with the Quran?

P.S. Just out curiosity, why is it that Muslims on this site, are never too interested in debating Hindusim and the Gita and Vedas. I have rarely, if ever, seen it done. Yet Hindus are so interested in quoting and debating Islam. Within the context of South Asia, far more Muslims are being killed than Hindus. One would think the interest would be the other way around........

warpster #28: `` I dont claim to be knowledgeable about the Koran.``

Until you study the Koran, all your arguments about Islam become null and void. It is like someone saying I have never studied Physics, but I think the Theory of Relativity has problems. It may (or may not) have problems, but no one can claim that without studying Physics.

So your real argument actually centers around the political aspects of many present-day Muslim groups. Which is a totally different argument. And it is even different from your original argument, i.e. Islam telling Muslims to actively disregard their non-Muslim heritage (I am assuming you agree now that that is not the case. Or that you spoke too soon, before getting into the facts).

So to the aspect of political views of present-day Muslims: ``The obvious question here is that why does Islam provoke a sense of outrage/victimhood in these groups who then adopt a position of ``my way or no way`` ?``

I don`t think Islam provokes anything amongst these people. If that were the case, they would have been doing this a long time ago. I think Islam (and all other religions) is the vehicle that is used by groups to channelize and motivate their followers, who in many cases are outraged and victims. The poorer or weaker or lesser educated a society, the easier it is to use religion to channelize this energy.

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.

Personally, I think much of this started as the Arab-Israeli conflict started. And will end, if that conflict ends.

In a practical sense, if you do the math, you will discover that more innocent Muslims in the world are being killed by Hindus, than vice-versa. More innocent Muslims are being killed by Christians than vice-versa. More innocent Muslims are being killed by Jews than vice-versa. And more innocent Muslims are being killed by athiests than vice-versa. I can provide you exact statistics and locations, if you prefer.

The weaker party in all these cases, will always move towards religion as a gathering point. I am not quite sure, however, how you can automatically blame religion on one side and not blame it on the other side. In fact, much of the support for Israel from the USA comes from individuals of a particular religion in the USA.

It is state terrorism vs. invidual terrorism. One needs to point out both, not just one. In either case, it is a political issue, and not a religious one. And far more Muslims are victims of State terrorism than vice-versa. This does not justify their terrorism, but it does distribute blame equally. I am quite surprised you are only willing to look at one side......

As to Naipaul’s opinions about Islam, they were first expressed long before the BJP’s rise to power, in ‘Among the Believers’ (1981). That book was in turn based on six month’s worth of travel in the Islamic world during the turmoil at the end of the 70’s. In subsequent work (‘Beyond Belief’ (1998) and assorted essays and such) Naipaul seems to have only revisited and refined the opinions he expressed in ‘Among the Believers’, but not radically revised them.

The Pakistan chapters of ‘Among the Believers’ are well worth rereading even after the passage of 25 years; in fact one can then turn to the corresponding chapters of ‘Beyond Belief’ with little apparent loss of continuity.

It is interesting that Naipaul cuts to the chase by mentioning Iqbal and his infamous 1930 speech at the very beginning of his Pakistan chapters in ‘Among the Believers’. Iqbal serves as both prelude and coda for the Pakistan chapters of ‘Beyond Belief’. Between those bookends, Naipaul in his characteristically understated and economical fashion, has savaged both the man and the civic-religious idea embodied in Pakistan. His epitaph for Iqbal goes ‘poets should not lead their people into hell.’ The corresponding verdict on the state reads:

‘In its short life, Iqbal’s religious state, still half serf, still profoundly uneducated, mangling history in its schoolbooks as well, undoing the polity it was meant to serve, has shown itself dedicated only to the idea of the cultural desert here, with glory – of every kind – elsewhere.’

Romair#26
``I am not sure whether my ancestors were from a high-caste or low-caste Hindu family. Islam is caste-less, so it has had no affect on my name. Could you highlight whether you have any information of low-caste Hindus abandoning their names, after converting to Islam. And did they change their names to get out of their caste system or because Islam told them to?``
I think I answered your question once before. The reason why your family continued with its Rajput caste name is that Islam in India failed to rid the converts of their casteist attitude. So, while the low-caste frequently started calling themselves saiyeds, quraish or ansars, the high caste converts, especially in Panjab, stuck to their castes, not only in their surnames but also in the matter of marriages, etc.. As for an example of low-castes changing their names, I recently visited Benaras, the birth place of the muslim sufi Kabir, revered and sung by hindus but rejected by muslims. Kabir was a julaha (weaver) by caste but now his descendants all call themselves ansaaris.
As to your next question, I am not aware of anything is quran which requires someone to change his/her name upon conversion. Therefore, Naipaul`s explanation that this is merely a form of Arab colonialism imposed by the Arabs on the converts makes sense, no different from what Macaulay`s children did at a later stage in history.

Mr. Rashid:
You are right about Naipaul`s personality. He is bitter and ungenerous to the core. But one cannot totally reject out of hand the unpalatable truths contained in his writings. This was as true of the nasty stuff he said about India, Indians and Hindus in his Area of Darkness and Wounded Civilization as it is about some of his observations about Islam in general, though with significant exceptions; even in India, what is true of a Bihari convert is not necessarily true of a Bengali convert.
A long time ago, I wrote this about Naipaul on a similar board, which I am reproducing here:
``I agree with you regarding the narrow scope of Naipaul`s methodological approach. And unlike Robert Kaplan, another brilliant writer who also turns travelogues into ``scholarly`` treatises, Naipaul doesn`t even bother to study his subjects before he sets upon his journeys (he says he wants to start without any pre-conceived notions!). This is also true of his devastating books on India and Hindus (which incidentally made him a darling of the ``literati`` in Pakistan until he turned his ire against Islam).

Still, despite his broad brush approach, there is a large kernel of truth in what Naipaul says about Islam and conversion, particularly as it pertains to subcontinental Islam. Let me illustrate with a hypothetical case. Let us say that I am a Hindu, Ram Das, in India, an overwhelming Hindu country, and decide to embrace Islam either because I like the message or because of an affair of the heart. I have been told that Islam is a simple religion which only requires one to say three times that there`s no god but God and Mohammad is his messenger. So, I naively say in the language that I know, ``Ishwar ek hai aur Mohammadji uske sandeshak hain.`` Would that be enough? Of course not - I have to say some strange words in a strange language to be accepted. This is my first intimation that God understands only Arabic and my conversion is ``qabool`` only if uttered in that language. After I have done that, I would be told that my name, the very symbol of my personal identity must change; so Ram Das must change into Ghulam Muhammad or something like that.

But my transformation has just begun. In the feast celebrating my conversion, I would be served beef on which I would have choked before conversion but from now on would be halal for me; and that which was acceptable to me would now be haram; my staple, daal-bhaaji would be a subject of scorn and ridicule. I would change my dhoti for sherwani (okay, this doesn`t hold any longer since both have been abandoned now!) and start making fun of my earlier food and attire.

I would then be told to identify with another language and to learn to read from right to left instead from left to right. From now on, I will identify more with Arabic and Persian than with Sanskrit, the language in which my ancestors created some epic literature. I will no longer tell my children the stories that I learnt in my childhood and instead tell them stories from a distant land. I will soon start thinking of the foreign invaders who defeated my ancestors as my heroes and those who fought them as ``jaahils``. My grandchildren would be so ashamed of me that they would start calling themselves Sayeeds and Qureshis. I would also learn that I am living in dar-ul-harb and that my Muslim identity and umma is more important to me than my family, my community and my country. If this is not asking the ``followers to abandon their past histories, culture, and identities``, what is?``

Urstruely, since you use the word often, its spelt as bigot.

Saggitarius
I remember Bend in the river very favorably, the main protagonist was a muslim (a bania, but a muslim). There was nothing anti-muslim in that book at all, and it is a great book. So I recommend all of you who fear Naipaul as a rabid dog to read this book. Its very clean.

Anyways, Naipaul surely has encouraged plenty of introspection for the introspectionphiles on chowk :-). His acid remarks on sub-continental writing/publishing were ten fold more incisive than those on religion or culture. So, all those in the trade watchout!

#25

Now we are getting somewhere. There are 2 threads.. One is the distancing from pre-islamic heritage and the second is the relative attribution to islamic ideology vs. norms for opposing kings regarding their behavior during wars and conquest. And there are many more variables as well (individual personalities).

In both cases, it is not a black and white issue, that is one factor (islamic ideology) cannot completely account for the the relevant behavior/attitudes. The key issue is then how significant it is/was as a factor. From a causal perspective does having the added cause of being consistent with islamic ideology make a difference in the two domains? I believe that it does and its contribution is not insignificant.

In recent times the taliban who considered themselves as the representative of a highly purified form of islam went against world opinion and blasted the Bamiyan Buddhas. You cannot argue that these folks did not take their Islam seriously. It may be such attitudes are out of place in today`s situation but to acknowledge that would be to admit that a religious book cannot be the sole guide to norms of behavior. There is a huge difference if the taliban were only incidentally muslim and (say) used some nationalist rhetoric (a la Mao during the cultural revolution) to proceed with their destruction. The point is that they used Islam to justify what they did. So the next question would be: Why is Islamic doctrine so easily used for these purposes? And many of the guerilla/terrorist movement around the world have an islamic flavor. The obvious question here is that why does Islam provoke a sense of outrage/victimhood in these groups who then adopt a position of ``my way or no way`` ?

I dont claim to be knowledgeable about the Koran. But there is enough prima facie evidence to suggest that something is not quite right. There are many web sites that proclaim in great detail the supposed defects of doctrinal islam (authored by muslims). My conclusions are not solely based on one source or the other but on the totality of the evidence. I have no problems in accepting that Hindu society has systematically discriminated against various groups for centuries. This acknowledgment and the process of internal reformation began in the 19th century and has progressed a lot. Where is the corresponding reformation in Islam? The argument one always hears is that individuals do not follow the real islam. For example: the Saudis practice a distorted version and so on. If this type of thing is common, then one only can conclude that the original specs are hard to interpret and implement in a consistent fashion. So the argument that Islam is good but muslims are bad can only go so far.

Nominal followers of a religion/cultural tradition may not understand what the fuss is about. But ideology has a very important impact on cultures. Religious ideology is hardly the only ideology that plays a role these days (ideology of the free market, science, disney, bollywood etc.) but its influence is hardly so insignificant to be ignored.

``Overall, his dislike of hinduism is exceeded only by his detestation of islam.``

Well put, Soysauce #19.

If we were willing to accept the criticism of our religions, we would accept critics more willingly. That goes for both Hindus and Muslims.

This article is pathetic beyond belief. It never seems to rise above a gossipy fixation with Naipaul’s personal proclivities and with backbiting comments from jealous contemporaries. It may well be true that Naipaul is not a pleasant man, not a ‘gentleman’ (or its equivalent in whatever culture you choose). He may have betrayed wives, discarded mistresses and cut former friends dead on his way to his present eminence. He may be utterly lacking in compassion for human frailties. All this by itself is far from uncommon among creative people, not to mention a vast multitude who never had an original thought. It is unclear what this obsession with the merely personal has to do with the quality of Naipaul’s writing or the acuteness or otherwise of his insight.

This litany of Naipaul’s personal failings may very well be an attempted substitute for cogent discussion or criticism of his work. It is Naipaul’s work, in the end, and not his personal life, that have brought him both fame and the hostile attention of the likes of Mr. Mughal. The hostility is likely the result, not of Naipaul being off the mark, but rather of his penetrating to the heart of unpleasant truths that various people would rather conceal or whitewash.

The stupidest single remark in this article is the remark that

{{If Naipaul’s not in conflict with himself, he wouldn’t be in conflict with the society around him. As long as he is not at peace with himself, it is not possible for him to be at peace with others.}}

This is at best a platitude and in my opinion false from a strictly logical point of view. It is quite possible to conceive of a person with no inner conflicts – say, because he believes himself to be in possession of the distilled essence of truth, and to be the embodiment of perfect virtue – who is in violent conflict with those in his milieu – because he considers them to be hopelessly astray. But as an observation about people externalizing their inner conflicts the observation is extremely trite. Any scientist, thinker, writer, creative person is responds to some creative itch, some inner tension, some dissatisfaction with the incomplete or imperfect state of the world, or his place in it, or his understanding of it. Perfect inner peace is found only in the grave.

As a crowning touch this article betrays that peculiarly Pakistani fixation with caste – Naipaul supposedly being a Brahmin. This reminds me of the embittered Theroux’s remark in his silly tell-all memoir that “One can take the Indian out of India, but one cannot take caste out of the Indian.” I predict that Indians will have left caste behind long before some other people lose their fixation with caste in Indians.

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

warpster #23: ``You provided, as an example, your surnames. Fair enough. Perhaps it has something to with the ``high`` caste indicated by the surname. Maybe converts from ``lower`` castes abandoned their surnames more readily (bihari muslims for example).``

I am not sure whether my ancestors were from a high-caste or low-caste Hindu family. Islam is caste-less, so it has had no affect on my name. Could you highlight whether you have any information of low-caste Hindus abandoning their names, after converting to Islam. And did they change their names to get out of their caste system or because Islam told them to?

Or once again, is this a theory trying to support an argument that has been agreed upon, amongst a certain group, without reseach, i.e. an answer trying to find a question? Or do you (and Naipaul) actually know what you are talking about?

I am no expert on names, but whatever I know actually points to the opposite of the argument you have presented. Consider the following:

- Islam, in fact, has no names defined for Muslims, i.e. there is no such thing as an, ``Islamic`` name. All names which people call, ``Islamic`` names, are Arabic names. Muhammad, Hussain, Ilyas, Laila, etc. are as much names of Arab Christians as they are of Arab Muslims. All the Arab Christians I know have these, ``Arabic`` names.

Hussain Habash, the head of a prominent Arab lobbying organization in the USA, is a Christian. Hussain is the name of the grandson of Prophet Muhammad. Casey Kasem, the famous DJ, is a Christian of Arabic descent. I assume his last name is really Qasim. Spencer Abraham, the Congressman from Michigan, is an Arab Christian, with Abraham as his name. Ralph Nader, the presidential candidate, is (I believe) of Arab Christian descent. His last name being popular amongst Muslims. So on and so forth.

When Muhammad fought the Meccans, I am sure there were non-Muslims in the Meccan Army named Muhammad, Ali, Hussain, etc. The fact that Islam allowed all Muslims (including Prophet Muhammad) to keep their pagan Arab non-Muslims, after converting, and did not dictate that they come up with new, ``Islamic`` names goes agaisnt your theory of Islam ordering Muslims to disown their ``pre-islamic heritage actively and aggressively.``

Similarly, many Pakistanis have Persian names. When Islam moved to Persia, the local Persian names survived amongst Muslims. In fact, Persian names became a part of, ``Islamic`` names. For example, Rustam, Sohrab, Afrasiab (?) etc. These names are common amongst Zorastorians, as they are amongst Muslims. Other Persian family names like Kayani are not Arabic. Pervaiz is a common Pakistani and, ``Islamic`` name. It is not Arabic. In fact, the Arabic language does not contain the alphabet, ``P,`` hence any Pakistani name with P in it, cannot be Arabic, much less, ``Islamic.``

So the P in Pervez Musharraf is not Arabic. Neither is the Bhutto in Benazir Bhutto. Since the, ``Bh`` sound does not exist in Arabic. I assume it is Sindhi. Ghakhar is a comon family name in Pakistan, as is Jat. Arabic does not have the, ``Kh`` sound, nor does it have the alphabet, ``T.`` So this goes against your theory also.

In addition, it is quite common to find Pakistanis with a Hindu last name, like mine. Punjab is filled with them. Warriach cannot be an Arabic name, nor even a Persian name, since neither language has a, ``rr`` sound. Chaudhry cannot be Arabic either, since, ``dh`` does not exist in Arabic.

If people do not change their name, then that alone is enough of an indication that they don`t have any major issues, which their heritage. After all, what could be closer to them, then their own name.

P.S. The only unique thing, I have noticed about, ``Islamic`` names in Hindu India is that, in this specific case, unlike the case with pagan Arab names and with Zorastorian Persian names, the Muslims only took on Hindu last names. They changed their Hindu first names. For example, had I converted from Zorastorian faith to Islam, I would have kept my whole name, e.g. Pervez Hamdani. However, if I converted from Hinduism, I would not be named Motilal Raja. I would be named Umair Raja or Pervez Raja.

I am not sure what the reason for the above is, but if someone wanted to get rid of their family heritage, they would get rid of their last name (family name) first. And Islam would have told its first followers to come up with new names.

warpster #23: You seemed to have shifted the goalposts a bit. I was replying to your original claim, i.e. ``islam encourages its followers to disown their pre-islamic heritage actively and aggressively``

Now you have shifted to Ghaznavi and Ghauri. If your claim is that Ghauri and Ghaznavi destroyed Hindu temples, then I would agree. However, that was not your original claim.

Having said that, if you study the history of Indian warfare, you will notice that Muslim invaders killed other armies of Muslim kings and rulers, alongwith those of Hindu kings. It didn`t have much to do with Islam. It had more to do with their being Kings. What to talk of Hindus, they even killed and jailed their own fathers and brothers. Mughals being a prime example. Aurangzeb went after his own brothers and Akbar after his own son, etc.

And surely, you would agree that Hindu kings killed other Hindu kings and their armies with equal ferocity. I know some of the history of my own family. And I can tell you for a fact, that Hindu Rajputs went after other Hindus. Not because they were Hindus, but because they were opposing Kings.

However, before taking this debate any furthur, I would like to find out whether you have done any research before making your claim. Or are you a victim of one-sided propoganda. After all, accusing a religion of such a claim is no small matter.

The Quran is the basis of Islam. Could you highlight the verses you researched that state that, Muslims should, ``disown their pre-islamic heritage actively and aggressively.`` I haven`t found those, even though I have studied the Quran extensively. And in all seriousness, my whole family should change its last name, if we are supposed to do so, according to Islam......

sagittarius

~~Shaka Zulu was a noble man: he never got personal.~~

LoL

Coming after you publish a whole diatribe focussing on the personal failings of Mr Naipaul that is truly hilarious! Thanks for that. :-)

Yes indeed ShakaZulu was a noble man but to say he didnt get personal is also funny, the dude pillaged and plundered and brought hellfire on opponents then dealt with the rival chieftans in classic Vlad the Impaler style.

Anyway, nice chatting with you, no hard feelings eh? Please write more so we can lock horns again.

regards

PunjabiZulu

I will give you that, but you fail to appreciate that my essay was written freely in a race against the clock. It is not a literary masterpiece. It is a light-hearted romp and, big deal, it had that typo about Sylvia.

To err is a godly gift, isn`t it?

Shaka Zulu was a noble man: he never got personal.

Rashid Mughal

Well said, mohar11.

We do not listen to another`s point of view; somehow, we hear only what we know.

Rashid Mughal