The Secularity of India

re: tahmed32 # 385

I am all for peace between our nations and I have no love for the BJP. All I was trying to point out was that India never threatened the independence of Pakistan, there was never a threat to occupy Pakistan like the US has done in Iraq.

Regards,

Faruk

tahmed32

I acknowledge having seen/read your post #389.

I suppose Nader Thiasi wouldn`t like to see this in India. After all, if one calls oneself an Islamic nation, then you can do anything!

`We slit his throat for propagating Christianity`

Reuters
Posted online: Friday, July 02, 2004 at 1338 hours IST

Kabul, July 2: Afghanistan`s Taliban guerrillas say they cut the throat of a Muslim cleric after they discovered him propagating Christianity and warned foreign aid workers they would face similar treatment if they did the same.

Taliban spokesman Abdul Latif Hakimi telephoned Reuters on Thursday to say that the guerrillas killed Maulawi Assadullah in the remote Awdand district of Ghazni province the previous day.

``A group of Taliban dragged out Maulawi Assadullah and slit his throat with a knife because he was propagating Christianity,`` he said.

``We have enough evidence and local accounts to prove that he was involved in the conversion of Muslims to Christianity.``

Provincial officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

Hakimi charged that a number of foreign aid agencies were also involved in spreading Christianity in Afghanistan, where the adherents to the religion are in a tiny minority.

``We warn them that they face the same destiny as Assadullah if they continue to seduce people,`` he said.

The fundamentalist Taliban, which was overthrown by US-led forces in late 2001, has declared a holy war against the continuing foreign troop presence in the country and views aid workers as legitimate targets in this battle.

The Taliban has killed at least 33 foreign aid workers since the start of last year, including Frenchwoman Bettina Goislard of the UN refugee agency, who was gunned down in the town of Ghazni, the provincial capital, in November.

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

rajsingh #388 Ok, that clarifies it: those were questions you were asking me, albeit in a round about manner. I will in that case try to answer them:

you write: ``Is it being said (denied) that Pakistan has not threatened India with nukes in the past? ``

No. In fact Pakistan has explicitly retained the option for first use of nuclear weapons if it feels threatened. And, while recognizing the serious dangers of a nuclear holocaust, I believe this is the correct approach. Defense against India after all was the purpose that drove successive Pakistani leaders to pursue the nuclear weapon. (the Indian governments persuit of the same, on the other hand, represented the same purposeless delusions of greatness that I see from some of your less sensible countrymen on chowk). Incidentally, the US itself persued nuclear weapons after WWII as a counterweight to the numerical superiority of the soviet forces in europe.

you write: ``Is it being said (denied) that Clinton offered all the goodies to Pakistan and even indicated treating India as int. pariah if Pakistan does not go ahead with its nuclear tests? ``

No, I am not saying anythng about this. What is the point you are trying to make? Now that you mention it, I will say that history has proved (so far) that Pakistan made the right decision in giving the Indian governemnt a response in kind in 1998, rather than bowing to international pressure. Taught the BJP clowns some basic lessons in reality.

you write: ``Is it being said (denied) that after Advani made some noise, Pakistan had no recourse but to go ahead with its tests? ``

No, of course not. But as I said above, it was the right choice. Certainly, it was a difficult decision and I know that there were tremendous pressures on Nawaz Sharif in both directions (military wanting to respond in kind, the international community wanting Pakistan to show restraint, and the Pakistani population greatly fearful). BJP politicians antics certainly strengthened the case of the Pakistan military, but in all likelihood they would have gone ahead in any case. As I have always said, with enemies like hindutvas morons, Pakistan does not need any friends.

you write ``Now do tell me what is convoluted, and what assumptions are in the above? ``
Just look at the way you framed your above questions to me (i.e. in the form of assertions of ``it is being said/denied), and I hope you will see why what you write seems convoluted.

finally: ``As to your saying it indicates I do not have any arguement, well, Sir, see above again and notice, not just an arguement but I am talking with facts. ``

I will have to go back to your original post (written several days ago) to see what your original point was, but hopefully I have answered your questions. If there still remain some questions that you wish to ask, or conclusions you wish to share, I will be very pleased to respond. But please be direct, since I know you dont mean to be rude or anything like that.

tahmed32

Post # 378

Quote:

---

`` More seriously, of course we can all look at the same facts and draw different conclusions. ``

---

Not much of a disagreement on this. However, don`t know how this is (the part quoted above) applicable here or the need for it. Especially when in my post #376, there hardly are any conclusions. They are more of questions.

Quote:

---

`` However, I am a bit confused by what you write. To start at the top: you write

``Is it being said (denied) that Pakistan has not threatened India with nukes in the past? ``

---

If you replace `Is it being said (denied)`` with, `Are you saying (denying)` ....that Pakistan has not threatened India with nukes in the past` ....I think, there should not be any confusion anymore on this aspect. Likewise, other questions/sentences too are to be read in the same manner.

As far as possible, I avoid writing on the lines of I/You/He/She said. That is to avoid making things personal and try to keep neutral and issue based (in the course of discussion/debate), if possible. It is with the same intent, had written post #376.

Quote:

---

Who is saying or denying this?

---

Post # 375 says: `` When you have to make an argument as convoluted and full of assumptions ``.

Now do tell me who has written the above? Is it not denying what has been written in post #371 (Post 376 is saying the same as post 371) ?

Quote:

---

And what is the point you are trying to make here?

---

Same point as in post#371. And that was in reponse to post #370 where it was being claimed, `` If you point a gun at someone, and back off only when the other person pulls out his own gun, then it is a bit hard to argue that you never really meant to shoot.``

Point is/was that it is not applicable to India as India was reacting to a situtation. It is not India that pointed a gun at Pakistan first but it had been other way around, albeit not so publicily. So when India pointed a gun, that was a reaction (referring to threats to India in the past) and at the same time, tried its best to make sure that the other party (Pakistan) too prove that it has a gun and show it publicily (recall, all along it had been threats and talk of the gun only), and face the music alongwith India.

I hope it is more clear now.

As to saying it was a tongue in cheek remark, well. ......:)

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

How would you Islamic thugs react if a state government in India run by Hindus prevented Muslims from going to Ajmer dargah? But a government headed by a Muslim can prevent Hindus from going on their pilgrimage!

Surely, this is an instance of the non-secularist nature of India but I don`t expect to see Nader Thiasi and his ilk complaining.

From the BBC:

Police stop Hindu pilgrim march

Police in Indian-administered Kashmir have stopped more than 100 Hindu pilgrims from trekking to the Hindu cave shrine of Amarnath.
The pilgrims, mostly Hindu holy men, set off on the trek two weeks ahead of the official start of the pilgrimage.

They were stopped on a road leading to Sonmarg which serves as the base camp for the journey.

The state authorities are keen to limit the pilgrimage as it requires tight security in this disputed region.

The pilgrims staged a protest sit-in against the police action.

Reports say the pilgrims set off on the journey ahead of the official schedule at the instigation of the Amarnath Yatra Action Committee which is opposing the state administration`s decision to limit the pilgrimage to 45 days.

The Amarnath shrine is situated almost four thousand metres above sea level.

Faruk #384 Agreed that our generals were at fault with their ``proxy war`` policy, and that certainly was the direct cause of the million men. Nevertheless, hope you will understand that as a Pakistani national, while I may consider the policies of the Pakistan government to be at fault, I would still consider it unacceptable to have a foreign army invade Pakistan. And that is why, while I think Pakistan should persue the path of peace with India to the point of having a joint front against islamic militants (the common enemy of the civilized world), it should do so from a position of strength. And to that extent, I think Musharaff`s policy is exactly right. Hopefully, one day both nations will mature enough to discard their weaponry (like the europeans have done after centuries of useless bloodshed). I doubt if it will happen anytime in the next couple of decades though.

Other things, we can agree to disagree upon. But I hope you will reflect on some of the things I pointed out earlier with respect to BJPs ideology that has no place in today`s world. Just as the Islamist ideology as no place in today`s world either.

gujjubania alias shamsul: I have said all I wanted to say to you.

Re: tahmed32 # 372
“I dont think we are on a tangent. How is threatening a neigboring country with your military might anything less than threatening its independence?”

The threat was in retaliation to the insurgents coming over from Pakistan and killing Indians. There is a big difference between retaliating to something and threatening action and threatening the independence of a nation.

“In fact Advani said as much when he said that the rules were now changed on Kashmir after blowing those 5 bombs and before Pakistan gave him a dose of reality and leading him to discover the virtues of peace with Pakistan.”

India has been well aware of Pakistan’s nuclear capability for a while. The threat was to force Pakistan to conduct nuclear tests and attract sanctions that it was not prepared for. It worked. As far as Advani discovering the virtues of peace, I would say lets agree to disagree on that.

Regards,

Faruk

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

niki #380 I have no problems with your finding India and Pakistan to be incomparable. That is your point of view, and I respect that. I do feel sorry for you having specimen like gujjubania, jay thakeray, arjun, harimau, for countrymen. There is simply no one comparable to them among Pakistanis (except urstruly, although even he has a sense of humor to balance off his nutty views). These fellows can only beat their single tune drum, trying to prove God knows what. I never would have imagined such morons existed if I had not come to chowk. But maybe that`s just me. :-)

On the other issue: I am not sure what gave you the idea that I (or any other Pakistani) have any particular concern for Indian muslims. We certainly dont want any more of them in Pakistan. Nor are they culturally like us anyway. We certainly dont need any more immigrants in Pakistan. We are still trying to encourage millions of Afghans to go back to their country after they had settled in Pakistan for over a decade. Biharis in bangladesh have been clamoring to be allowed to resettle in Pakistan ever since 1971, but there has been no great public interest in them. And India has given us rascals like maudoodi and zia. (not to mention time wasters on chowk like me).

I too have been to India, and rest assured the type of poverty I have seen in India I never saw in Pakistan. I agree India is doing better than Pakistan, but why does every second Indian come in beating this drum? As I said, both countries remain the cesspool of the world. Only thing is that most Pakistanis (going by chowk posts) are humble enough to accept this reality, while Indians go about beating their drum. I sense it has to do with some psychological insecurities. I find real life Indians to be perfectly reasonable people, but I dont know what kind of specimen get sent to chowk. Maybe it is a RAW conspiracy to ruin this website. (Just kidding, btw. Many of your countrymen on chowk are dumb enough to take it seriously).

Anyway, seriously, you are obviously a decent chap. Be proud of Indian achievements, but dont forget the realities that your own countrymen tried to bring to your attention in the last elections - India is home to the largest collection of poverty stricken people in the world. The rest of the world is miles ahead of India, and all you are doing is trying to catch up. Just as we are trying to do in Pakistan.

gb #377 you write ``ndian nukes are indigenous in nature , so testing in 1998 was basically experimental in nature and essential for the development process. While Pak`s testing in response was merely a case of detonating the existing Chinese made nukes. ``

With remarks like this, India does not need any nukes. All they need is you, and all of us Pakistanis will die laughing at your remarks.

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

rajsingh: #376 That was a tongue in cheek remark, and the smiley was intended to make that clear. More seriously, of course we can all look at the same facts and draw different conclusions. That is human nature, and the best we can do is make sure that there is some logical link between the facts and the conclusions.

However, I am a bit confused by what you write. To start at the top: you write

``Is it being said (denied) that Pakistan has not threatened India with nukes in the past? ``

Who is saying or denying this? And what is the point you are trying to make here? Please clarify, and I will do my best to respond.

The same goes for the other sentences you write which start with ``It is being said``.

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

tahmed32

Post #374

Quote:

`` When you have to make an argument as convoluted and full of assumptions as the one you came up with, it indicates that you dont have any argument. :-) ``

You say, convulted and full of assumptions...Well, let us see if that really is the case..

Is it being said (denied) that Pakistan has not threatened India with nukes in the past?

Is it being said (denied) that Clinton offered all the goodies to Pakistan and even indicated treating India as int. pariah if Pakistan does not go ahead with its nuclear tests?

Is it being said (denied) that after Advani made some noise, Pakistan had no recourse but to go ahead with its tests?

Now do tell me what is convoluted, and what assumptions are in the above?

Terming/calling it convoluted/assumptions does not make it.

As to your saying it indicates I do not have any arguement, well, Sir, see above again and notice, not just an arguement but I am talking with facts.

Faruk # 341,

Thanks for Asghar Ali`s article. He`s right on target.
But also note that while Indian media shows its bias against islam, christianity and christians are somehow shown in the best light.

Adios

rajsingh #371 When you have to make an argument as convoluted and full of assumptions as the one you came up with, it indicates that you dont have any argument. :-)

The simple point is that the BJP politicians changed their tune (and their wet lungis), once they realized that they could not play armchair warrior any more since they were within nd Pakistan`s reach even in their armchairs. And they changed their tune faster than you can say ``India invented the atom bomb``, and even faster than you can say ``We will overrun Pakistan with a million men``. It is these armchair extremists who are the scum of the earth. And it is about time we realized that (in Pakistan and in India). The rest are either fools or victims.

Faruk #372 I dont think we are on a tangent. How is threatening a neigboring country with your military might anything less than threatening its independence? In fact Advani said as much when he said that the rules were now changed on Kashmir after blowing those 5 bombs and before Pakistan gave him a dose of reality and leading him to discover the virtues of peace with Pakistan.

tahmed32

Post#370


Quote:

``If you point a gun at someone, and back off only when the other person pulls out his own gun, then it is a bit hard to argue that you never really meant to shoot. ``

Sure, but one aspect being overlooked here is that the gun was being pointed at someone because that someone, all along had been threatening to use a gun, without ever having proved/shown that he (that someone) really posses a gun. So by pointing a gun, two purposes got served. One, message got served that enough of that someone`s veiled/direct threats of using gun, and here is my gun out in the open. If you (that someone) dare, draw/pull out your gun too. Second, since drawing a gun out in the public would certainly have attracted/drawn some punishment. In order to reduce that punishment and to ensure only one party is not punished, gun was pointed at that someone and forcing him to pull out his own too. And that someone being that someone played the game as expected.

So you see, it is quite possible to argue that you never really meant to shoot.

Re: tahmed32 # 370

I think we are going on a tangent here. All I was trying to point out was that India has never threatened the independence of Pakistan. We have a problem with anyone supporting insurgents in our country and the Indian foreign policy is directed at dissuading Pakistan from following that policy. But India has never threatened the independence of Pakistan. There is a big difference, just wanted to point that out.

Regards,

Faruk

Faruk #369 If you point a gun at someone, and back off only when the other person pulls out his own gun, then it is a bit hard to argue that you never really meant to shoot. And BJP chauvinists have amply demonstrated their respect for all faiths when they tore down Babri masjid, and their respect for human life when they burnt entire muslim families. They are just as bad as our religious fanatics, and in some ways more barbaric (as in their attacking of people in their homes, dragging them out and burning them).

The important thing is for normal people in India not to feel obliged to defend the actions of these animals, and to recognize that BJP is simply the ``political face`` of an inherently evil ideology. Just as the important thing for normal people in Pakistan is not to feel obliged to defend the actions of our generals and to recognize the danger to civilized society that islamic fanatics present. Only when we recognize the true enemy (the enemy within our societies) and the true friends (normal people across the world who seek only peace and progres) will there be any hope for the future.

Re : tahmed32 # 368

Those threats were to stop Pakistanis from how should I Say providing “moral” support to insurgents in India. But they never threatened the independence of Pakistan at least not in the conventional sense of the word.

Regards,

Faruk

Faruk #366 One million and five reasons.

I refer to BJPs attempts to bully Pakistan before they discovered the virtues of peace: the five nukes accompanied by Advanis threats, and the million man army accompanied by the indian military chief`s threats of a ``jolly good`` war. For all their faults, Pakistani leaders have made sure of one thing: that Pakistanis need never be afraid of the BJP chauvinists.

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

Re: tahmed32 #362

“Pakistan no longer needs that theory to stay independent (it has the military means it needs to assert itself as a proud and free nation).”

Why do you think the independence of Pakistan is under threat.

Faruk

niki #363 It is not my intention to start another India-Pakistan internet war (I already see my faithful campfollower AlephNull coming out of the woodwork with his usual sarcastic references to the ``sahib`` in #364 while ignoring what I actually wrote). And I fully share with you your pride and optimism in India`s achievements in the political and more recently in the economic fields (not only because it is indirectly beneficial to Pakistan as well, but also because I too am a son of the Indian soil in a sense, if I may be a bit dramatic, given that my ancestors lived in what is now India). However, the two basic points you make are not quite correct: (a) on the basis for the formation of India, while what you say about rulers of states having a choice is correct, that is still not exactly democracy. The people of India were never asked in a referendum on what they wanted. And in any case, even this process of letting rulers decide was arrived at throught the round table conferences, so I believe what I originally said in #362 as the process through which both india and pakistan were formed remains correct.
(b) While there is much joy in India having finally shed the ``hindu rate of growth`` (as development economists used to jokingly refer to it until recently) of 4%, and this is indeed good news for not just India but for pakistan and the rest of south asia and indeed the entire world, the fact remains that India remains (along with Pakistan) among the world`s poorest nations. While an entire generation of Indians seems to have been raised on BJP propoganda of there being no comparison between India and Pakistan, reality is quite different. Remember that BJP is the same party that thought it was dancing around with joy as if they had made a technological breakthrough by inventing the nuclear bomb, when in fact it is ancient technology by now. Thousands of your countrymen were surprised by the realities of Pakistan when they visited it this spring - maybe you should do that some day and will realize just how out of touch with reality the BJP ideologues are.

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

rajsingh1 #356, #361

{{(no comparison between India and Pakistan in the given context)}}

In order to understand the response you triggered in sahib you may want to read his prior contributions to the discussion of this article, which was ostensibly about Indian secularism. You will find ‘India-Pakistan equal-equal’ to be the major theme about which sahib tries to weave his variations.

‘Equal-equal’ with India is of course one of the founding delusions of the Pakistani state and especially its ruling class. Facts do not support such a world-view. As time goes by, India’s governing mechanisms while creaky continue to accumulate strength and institutional memory, and more and more Indians make their names and fortunes in every constructive field of human endeavour. Pakistanis simply cannot compete, even proportionately; their major achievements are in breeding Islamist terrorism, where of course they lead the world. This is unsurprising given the very different direction Pakistanis gave to their nation from its birth. Yet Pakistan’s ruling class still desperately clings to the central dogma of the national existence just as believers insist on clinging to the absurd tenets of a revealed religion. Every fresh blow that reality deals to the central myth – such as the revelations of stolen and borrowed technology, or the latest rape committed by the Pakistani military dictator on the body politic – becomes another opportunity for forlornly reiterating the creed, as though simply believing will make it so.

So while your mentioning the US and UK as appropriate comparisons for India as fellow democracies, and refusing to even admit Pakistan in the same class, was quite valid from the point of comparing apples with apples alone – it was a intolerable insult to sahib’s pride as a Pakistani, a dreadful slap in his face; and his human-all-too-human response should be understood as an outraged howl of protest.

rajasingh #361 There is no inherent logic to the formation of nation-states. In particular:

UK was not formed as a democracy, but as a kingdom that was united by sword by various kings. It then evolved over time into a democracy.

The US was formed as a result of a bloody revolutionary war.

India was formed not because the people of India agreed in a referendum to unite as one country with a democratic constitution - it was formed due to agreements reached by british bureaucrats and congress and muslim league politicians around a round table.

Pakistan was formed as part of the same process as India. The two-nation theory is logically meaningless, and was simply a tactic successfully used to form Pakistan. Pakistan no longer needs that theory to stay independent (it has the military means it needs to assert itself as a proud and free nation).

It is fair to say that in India democracy is much further ahead than Pakistan in terms of having a stable, democratic political system. But that is all.

Harimau

I acknowledge having seen/read your post.

tahmed32

Quote:

`` I am not suprised by your great desire to have India compared with the US and UK - I am quite familiar by now with the delusions of Indians. Anyway, enjoy your delusions. ``

Guess there is some misunderstanding or misreading here. Neither there is any desire or any want on my part to compare UK, US with India in this context. I merely pointed out that when it comes to apples and oranges, the thing that is common between them is, both are fruit. Comparing apples and oranges will not serve any purpose as there hardly is any comparison. Only thing I have done is pointed out/reminded of the fundamental difference in that particular context. And that does not constitute any desire or want on my part. One may like/accept this or not (no comparison between India and Pakistan in the given context)but that is the reality.

As to the delusions part, well, whatever pleases you, Sir!

Ref Mullah32 #358

[harimau: Still the same fu!cked up little man, I see.]

Can`t handle the truth, can you?

[Go kiss Modi`s butt.]

Just because you all kiss Jinnah`s butt doesn`t mean I have to kiss Modi`s.

harimau: Still the same fu!cked up little man, I see. Go kiss Modi`s butt.

rajasingh: Thanks for your views. I have no wish to beat this dead horse again. I am not suprised by your great desire to have India compared with the US and UK - I am quite familiar by now with the delusions of Indians. Anyway, enjoy your delusions.

Ref rajsinghi1 #356

If one looks at the situation carefully, one could see that the only sentiment that moves people in South Asia is ``Islam is in danger.``

That statement is used in Pakistan and Bangladesh to start riots in which minorities are killed, their women are raped and their property is stolen.

In India, the same meaning can be found in a slightly different slogan: ``Secularism is in danger.``

There is no danger to secularism if 60 Hindus are burnt to death in Godhra.

There is no danger to to secularism if 3000 Sikhs are lynched in New Delhi.

There is no danger to secularism if Christian missionaries are killed or converts to Christianity are attacked.

But touch a single hair of a single Muslim and we have the secularists crying ``Secularism is in danger.``

What they really mean is ``Islam is in danger.``

Think about that! Is there any other place on earth where people could be so brainwashed as to behave like robots?

Plats8, get an ice pack for your head as you read this.

Tahmed32

Post#348

Quote:

`` religion is far more mixed up in politics in pakistan than in india. ``

Pakistan itself was created in the name of religion.

Merely a reminder.

India, by choice, chose Secularism. So if there is a comparison between say, UK or US and India in this context, one can understand. But, when the foundations of a country had been laid in name of religion then comparisons like these could be on the surface and not substance, it would seem.

wonder what the paki-bashers will say about this:

BJP stands by Modi

NEW DELHI, June 20: India`s opposition Hindu nationalists on Sunday shot down renewed calls to dismiss Gujarat`s hardline leader, who is accused of abetting anti-Muslim violence in the western state.

``There is no proposal to change the leadership of Gujarat at this juncture,`` Venkaiah Naidu, president of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), told reporters after a meeting of top party leaders in New Delhi.

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi had come under fresh scrutiny after police said they gunned down four Muslims, including a 19-year-old woman, last Tuesday because they allegedly plotted to assassinate the state leader.

India`s ruling Congress party has suggested that the shootout was a set-up to build sympathy for Modi and demanded an impartial probe. Former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, breaking with his party`s longstanding backing of Modi, said last week that a BJP national meeting set to start on Tuesday in Mumbai would consider replacing the Gujarat leader.

Vajpayee also said for the first time that anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat, which left 2,000 people dead in 2002, contributed to the BJP`s upset election defeat in April-May elections.

But Vajpayee`s remarks led hardliners to rally around Modi, who had been facing calls for his resignation even from some BJP lawmakers in Gujarat. Vajpayee took part in Sunday`s BJP meeting, which was seen as an attempt to clear up intra-party disputes instead of airing them publicly at the Mumbai convention. -AFP

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=32648&headline=In~the~name~of~love,~Pranesh~Pillai~became~Javed~Shaikh

In name of love, Pranesh became Javed Shaikh

Express News Service
Posted online: Thursday , June 17, 2004 at 0406 hours IST

Pune, June 17: Pranesh Kumar Gopinath Pillai came to Pune from Kochi with his parents when he was a child. Like other kids of his age, he grew up in this peaceful city. While in his early 20s, he fell in love and realised soon enough that if he was to marry his lady love, he had to convert.



And so Pranesh Pillai became Javed Gulam Mohammed Shaikh.

On Tuesday, the 30-year-old was among the four Lashkar-e-Toiba militants who were killed in a shootout with Gujarat police who claimed the gang was planning to assassinate chief minister Narendra Modi.

During the last 24 hours, the Pune police have been working overtime to find out more about Javed and his family. And how he came to be associated with the Lashkar.

Scriptures and books say many things. Life only becomes nightmarish for muslims and others if they start referring to their book for every issue under the sun. Nothing but for the natural laws are universal. What is written in the scriptures might be true in a window of time and space, not forever. Don`t the muslims know this ? Or is it their stubbornness that is clouding their thinking ? Dispassionately saying, whatever was native and common to the people in south asia is now being pushed and limited to the present-day boundaries of India. All this in the name of religion.

Harimau #351,

Don`t wish to continue this any further, but what delusions are your specialty ?
Delusions of humility, perhaps.

Ref plats8 #247

Thank God that you have delusions of adequacy only. It could have been far worse: you could have had delusions of grandeur.

sparchus: ``Musims with hindus.India has been ravaged by their rampant population explosion, backwardness and a rigidity to change.`` -- yes of course sparchus -- they were quite `rigid` when it came to telling their hindu attackers to let them (the muslims that is) live -- i believe that is a flaw that they had, the muslims of gujarat that is, in the year of our lord 2002 -- in the time of modi the malevolent .... :)

harish #343 slowly, slowly, (to translate directly from urdu) we pakistanis will surely dance along the yellow brick road to find the holy grail of democracy at the end of the rainbow (to completely screw up metaphors)

:-)

dost mittar #345 Your facts are of course quite accurate - religion is far more mixed up in politics in pakistan than in india.

However, it is also a fact that most of this mixing has been done not based on popular demand: ahmedis were in fact doing very well in pakistan until bhutto, in an attempt to please the jamaatiyas, callously had them declared nonmuslims. zia was responsible for the remaining mixing of politics and religion. and I will agree that many in the middle class (like the writer of this stupid article) are responsible for allowing this mixing to continue.

Having said all this, the fact remains that the driving force behind islamazation, or ``maudoodiization`` to be more accurate, has been the religious parties and not the general public. Bhutto merely greased the sqeuaky wheel (i.e. the mullah parties that made noise vastly out of proportion to their showing in elections).

This distinction becomes important when one seeks a solution for religious extremism in pakistan: if one trusts the people of pakistan, then mullahs dont stand a chance.

niki #346 trust me, the general public in pakistan knows what it wants. in fact, it doesnt even want the cake you referred to. the only time the general public of pakistan got really energized (and i am old enough to remember all this) is when bhutto waved the roti, kapra aur makaan slogan before them. poor abdul in pakistan is no different from poor nathu ram india: both these boys are more concerned about their next meal, and if that is given, then about education for their kids. it is only the hindutva ideologues in india and the militarist ideologues in pakistan who have managed to spread lies in an effort to prolong this stupid india-pakistan confrontation. 15,000 indian cricket fans hardly recognized the pakistanis they ran into a couple of months back as you may recall.

as for the middle class, trust me that pakistan has roughly the same middle class (taking into account population differences) as in india. the best pakistani public schools match anything you will find in the US, if you go by SAT scores e.g. (I know fellows scoring in the 1500s after an all pakistan education). while we surely have enormous problems, i think people in india tend to routinely underestimate pakistanis (as poor Advani learnt to his horror in 1998, but dont let me get into this since a lot of your countrymen are sensitive on this point and get annoyed when i bring this up :-)

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

tahmed32:
``Its just that the muslim counterparts of BJP in Pakistan never did anywhere close as BJP has done in elections.``

There was no need to...the so-called non-religious parties were doing a dandy job of implementing the islamic agenda. Pakistan was named an ``Islamic`` republic by the non-religious parites - I cannot call them secular as none of them claim that all Pakistanis will be equal citizens regardless of religion! They were the ones who practically banned classical music from Pakistan Radio as it was considered to be influenced by Hinduism, practically eliminated classical dance (though it`s staging some kind of a come-back); even discouraged wearing clothes they considered influenced by Hindu religion, banned Ahmedias from saying Salam Ayelaikum, started k-for-kafir education, created taliban, almost passed the Hadood amendments. Who needs religious parties?

rahul_capri #342
Thanks for your reply, I mostly agree with you.

`` I have never known where we draw these boundaries, and I dont want to begin either.``

Well said. That is what I believe too, that we are all in this together for better or for worse.

#338 by tahmed32

Pakistan has been tolerant of despots ever since its birth. The only time democracy was threatened in India, people came out and made Indira Gandhi eat crow. And the protests-against-Ayub example you provided was only a single instance of something on those lines. Never seen any large-scale protests against Yahya, Zia or even Mushy. And the way some Pakistanis go ga-ga over Mushy, they actually seem to be eulogizing him. Which is not a good sign at all.

Regarding freedom of press in Pakistan, with my limited knowledge of the press there, I can recall that Najam Sethi, Shaheen Sehbai, and Ghulam Hasnain have all been at the receiving end of the vengeful establishment`s stick at various times. Najam Sethi for being critical of Nawaz, Shaheen Sehbai for being critical of Mushy and Ghulam Hasnain for writing about Dawood Ibrahim`s lifestyle and activities in Karachi.

And while your optimism is indeed praise-worthy, the fact remains that Pakistan has still a long way to go before it can actually experience true democracy.

While some of our Pakistani friends fret and fume against L K Advani and Bal Thackeray, few even care to take a peek at their own backyard, where rogues such as Hafeez Muhammad Saeed of the LeT and Maulana Masood Azhar of the JeM routinely spew hatred and vitriol against Indians and Hindus. Here`s an article by a Pakistani (emphasis added) on how the LeT supremo is trying to outreach to the handicapped by preaching Jihad i.e., killing the infidels. Ahmadzai, Omar and the others, please pay attention. Sign up for Jihad and slay the infidels.

Amid friendship talks, groups propagate jihad against India
Sunday, June 13 2004 @ 01:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Mohammad Shehzad - Saeed vows to break fencing along LoC

While as the government of Pakistan is aspiring to forge peace with India and General Musharraf recently sent his closest aide and security advisor Tariq Aziz to India where he had detailed secret meetings with Indian counterpart J N Dixit, Jihadi forces continue to preach war against India vigorously under the very nose of Musharraf administration. Founder leader of Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed vows to break the fencing raised by India along LoC and border and claims that his Mujahideen will continue Jihad in Kashmir and ‘kill Indians.’ Not only this, Saeed has started approaching special people and convincing them to join Jihad.

“Musharraf is trying to forge friendship with India. Sheikh Mujeeb also tried to forge friendship with India. What was the result? Pakistan’s disintegration! I will continue to preach jihad and prepare jihadis who will continue to kill the Indians until Kashmir and all the disputed territories that originally had to become part of Pakistan according to the partition plan. Those who say that fencing across the Line of Control will stop infiltration are naïve. I give you my words. My mujahideen will break this fencing and the Indian army will be selling its scrap to the junk-sellers of New Delhi @ one rupee per kilogram,” Saeed was quoted saying by Majjalla-tul-Dawa, one of the Lashkar’s publication.

In yet another publication, Ghazwa (May 27), Saeed has been quoted as saying: “The friendship policy with India has failed. Congress is a xerox copy of BJP. Congress is the party that created the Kashmir issue. Indra Gandhi masterminded Pakistan’s disintegration. Wage jihad against Congress my brothers. It is the same party which has amputated our one arm i.e. East Pakistan. Remember, no Indian government could be Pakistan’s friend. Friendship with the Jews, Christians and Hindus is impossible.” Of late Saeed has started expanding the network of jihadis despite government claims that the activities are being curbed. He has recently outreached to the special people. With the help of sign-language specialists, Saeed had preached jihad to deaf and dumb.

Majjalla-tul-Dawa [May issue] reported that he recently addressed a group of deaf and dumb and said: ‘Allah has created human being for only one mission i.e. jihad. You are not less important than others because of your special status. It is also your duty to wage jihad against the forces of evil. Indian army is massacring the innocent Kashmiris. It is also your duty to wage jihad against them and teach them a lesson. You should go to Kashmir and kill the Indians. If you do that your terror will prevail and I would be able to claim that my ‘handicapped’ jihadis are enough to kill the healthy Indians.’

It is interesting to note that while on one hand Pakistan claims to promote peace with India, on the other hand, no effort is being made to stop such provocative publications and activities. There are laws more than one under which these publications could be banned. But they are still published and distributed as freebie to brainwash the gullible masses.

Here is a well written article by Asghar Ali Engineer

INDIAN MUSLIMS AND SECULARISM

October 16-31, 2003

by Asghar Ali Engineer

Indian Muslims are facing acute challenge today thanks to critical situation of communalism in India today. The aggressive rise of Sangh Parivar has made great difference to their existence. The history of their attitude to secularism is also quite zigzag and interesting. It must be, however, noted that no community as huge as Indian Muslims should or can be homogenised. The Indian Muslims have been immensely diverse in all senses – religious, ideological, cultural, lingual as well as political. In addition to all this, they have, somewhat like Hindus, caste diversity too, although short of untouchability.

It would thus be wrong to talk of, as we often do, any uniform attitude of Indian Muslims to secularism. We have to note one more thing about Indian Muslims that they are in minority and all minorities whether cultural, religious or linguistic, tend to, in the moment of crisis whether perceived or real, which threatens their existence, adopt somewhat uniform pattern of behaviour though this uniformity is more apparent than real. This apparent uniformity of behaviour in moments of crisis is not only taken real by many but also is thought to be of permanent nature. We will throw some light on this little later.

The question of secularism and Indian Muslims is not new. It arose as early as mid eighties when the Indian National Congress was formed. It was founders of Indian National Congress fully aware of multi-religious character of Indian society, adopted secularism as an anchor sheet of political policy. Indian Muslims were split even then in their attitude towards Indian National congress and its policy of secularism. Some Muslims led by Badruddin Tyebji not only attended the Bombay session of INC but they wholeheartedly approved of its policies. Another section of Muslims, on the other hand, led by Sir Syed, a great advocate of modern education among Muslims, thought it fit that Muslims should keep their distance from the Congress as it would anger the British rulers.

However, what is more interesting that the orthodox Ulama led by Maulana Qasim Ahmed Nanotvi, the founder of Darul `Ulum Deoband, urged upon Muslims to join the Indian National congress and fight shoulder to shoulder with their Hindu brethren to expel Britishers from this country. Maulana Qasim Ahmed Nanotvi even issued a fatwa requiring Muslims to join Indian National Congress to fight against the Britishers. Not only this he collected 100 such fatwas and published them in the form of a book called Nusrat al-Ahrar which meant helping the freedom fighters.

Thus even the orthodox `ulama did not hesitate to accept secular policies of Indian National Congress during nineteenth century. These `ulama later formed an organisation Jami`at-ul-`Ulama-i-Hind which consistently remained with INC and supported all its secular policies. These `ulama urged upon Mahatma Gandhi to take up the cause of the Khilafat movement which the Mahatma did and it drew large number of Muslims to the Congress fold. Thus the Jam`at-ul-`Ulama-i-Hind had the credit of bringing Indian Muslims to accept the dream of secular India.

It is also interesting to note that the Jami`at never compromised on its support to the concept of secular India and opposed two nation theory of Jinnah tooth and nail. The contribution of Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani who was president of Jami`at when the controversial theory of two nation was propounded, was quite seminal. He urged Indian Muslims not to be misled by the Muslim League propaganda and throw their lot with composite nationalism.

Thus it would be a serious mistake to think that all Indian Muslims supported the Pakistan movement. In fact not only the Jami`at-ul-`Ulama-i-Hind but also the All India Momin conference which was the organisation of weaving community among Muslims opposed formation of Pakistan and threw its lot with the Congress and its secular policies. In fact all low caste Muslims had hardly any interest in formation of Pakistan as it was perceived, and rightly so, for the benefit of upper class Muslim elite. Unfortunately these Muslims had no voice as franchise was limited only to upper class, upper caste Hindus and Muslims. Thus they could not influence the decision for partitioning the country and the unfortunate thing happened. Thus the entire responsibility of partition rests on the Hindu and Muslim elite of the time. The masses from both the communities were left high and dry.

II

In post independence India too Muslims had diverse attitude towards secularism. Now they were much reduced and weakened minority. The educated elite, especially from U.P. and Bihar, had migrated to Pakistan. The poor Muslim masses that could hardly gain anything by migration remained in India and saw their safety in clinging to the Congress ideology of secularism.

However, secularism followed a very zigzag course in post-independence India too. Though Jawaharlal Nehru was firmly committed to secularism many of his fellow Congressmen had, to say the least, highly ambiguous attitude towards secular philosophy. It is interesting to note that Shri Gobind Ballabh Pant, the then chief Minister of U.P. did not make any efforts to remove the idol of Ram Lallah which was installed inside Babri Masjid in 1948 despite strong letters from Nehru and Sardar Patel. His commitment to secularism was certainly not as firm as that of Jawaharlal Nehru. Had he firmly asserted his authority and got the idol removed India perhaps would not have faced such disaster as it did since late eighties when the Sangh Parivar decided to ride to power on Ram Lallah and seriously weaken the secular character of India.

Indian Muslims` faith in secularism too had diverse trends. The Jamat-e-Islami-i-Hind, which followed the guide lines laid down by Maulana Maududi at the time of his migration to Pakistan and rejected secularism as an “atheistic philosophy” and accepting it would amount to “rebellion against Allah and His messenger.” However, the Jamat, it must be noted, was a cadre based party and had very little following among the Muslims. The Jamat too, accepted democratic secular political philosophy in the post-Babri demolition period and set up a secular democratic front and has been ever since making efforts for communal harmony along with many NGOs and Human Rights activists.

Many politicians and scholars see in Muslims `uplicity` of attitude as far as secularism and secular issues are concerned. Firstly, they feel, Indian Muslims invoke secularism for the safety and security of their existence but aggressively fight against any move for secular change or reform in their religious tradition. In eighties the Shah Bano case became the most cited example of this `uplicity`.

It is undoubtedly true that a large number of Muslims were mobilised by the North Indian Muslim leadership to oppose the Supreme Court judgement in the Shah Bano case. But as pointed out above, Muslims have diverse trends among themselves and quite a large number of Muslims were in support of Shah Bano judgement but media which is more interested in negative reporting never covered these diverse trends among Muslims. In South a section of Muslim religious leadership also opposed the Shah Bano movement launched by the North Indian Muslim leadership. Many Muslim activists submitted memoranda to the then Rajiv Gandhi Government not to change the Shah Bano judgement but to no avail. The media hardly gave much importance to this dissenting Muslims viewpoint. The so-called Shahi Imam who hardly represents a tiny minority of Muslims, always hogged headlines in the media.

Secondly, the Muslims are often accused of keeping silent when Godhra like incident takes place. The Sangh Parivar even accuses the secularists from amongst the majority community of such an attitude. This is also not quite true. No sensible Muslim would ever approve of such highly condemnable incidents. Many did send their statements to the press but either did not find place in the papers or were reported on inside pages not very prominently. Now of course in view of such repeated accusations number of Muslims are not only issuing statements but organising events like protest meeting etc. in order that the media take notice of their condemnation. After the bomb blast in Mumbai on 25th August number of Muslims in Mumbai held a high profile meeting to condemn the bomb blast. The Muslims in Muslim areas even organised spontaneous bandh next day after the blast. If one moves among common Muslims one will find visible sentiments against such indiscriminate violence by some Muslim fanatics.

It is also not true that all Muslims are opposed to any reform in Muslim personal law as it operates in India. As education and awareness is increasing pressures are developing on the personal law board to effect the necessary changes. Many educated Muslim women are becoming articulate critic of status quo and are demanding certain changes. It is a matter of time that such changes will have to be effected.

It is also important to note that new realities are emerging on the social and political scene. One should not take static view of Muslim situation in India. Many changes are taking place among the Muslims in post-Babri demolition and now post-Gujarat carnage period. The trend for secular education is increasing most certainly and more and more educational institutions are coming up. Madrasa education is here to stay among poorer Muslims but trend for secular education is no less significant. The need for secular education and secular values was never felt so strongly among Muslims as today. The rise in aggressive Sangh communalism is a challenge that the Muslim leaders and intellectuals should use creatively for a healthy change. Every challenge also brings some hidden opportunities.

Sadna #319.
I agree with most of the points that you make, and I disagree with some of them.
As far as a nuanced approach is concerned, I couldn`t agree more.Thats what I have been saying all along.Just deinstitutionalize the mullahs,bring the interpretation of holy scriptures out of their jurisdiction(I dont know how radical a step that is), and more than half of the problem is solved.From a legal angle, that is.
The major battle is in changing mindsets.If people believe that a law in unfair, they will find ways to break it; like we saw in the laws relating to foeticide.The conscience won`t interfere.
But here, I think most of the Muslims do realize the unfairness of some of the personal laws.We see vehement and abusive attacks on chowk on less important and sensitive matters. I ended up having constructive discussions with quite a few of them regarding the sanctity of Quran, potentially the most sensitive subject for a muslim.
Sometimes it becomes more a case of ``billi ke gale me ghanti kaun baandhe``.
There are two ways of reforming a society-implicit and expilicit. The implicit way is certainly the more powerful and permanent.Self discipline is always better than forced discipline.I agree fully to your point regarding the Gandhi and Ambedkar way of social reform.But some kind of political will has to be shown.Some kind of action has to be taken to clear up the dogma.It wont just go away. For the young and liberal muslim who wants to fight against the dogma, it is a battle on many fronts. He/She has to battle against the older generation who are too tired to think and are uncomfortable against anything else the status quo, the local mullah and the law of the land to boot.
Lets try to make his her fight a little easier.
As far as the Vedas vs Quran thing is concerned,these two texts are not entirely comparable.Accurate scholarship of both of them will unearth the whole offense of the mullahs and the pandits.But the similarity ends there.Quran mandates the concept of a practising muslim, there is no such thing as a practising hindu.The path to becoming a good muslim has to go through the Quran, a book that cannot be argued with nor amended.This is what gives rise to the layers and layers of dogma.And this is where I think I have to raise my voice.
As for the last point regarding whose business it is, I feel it is everybodys business who feel it is their business. Since you are just musing,I am offering my insight.If anybody would have ``told`` me its not my business, I might have got very angry about that .(My aplogies if I come off as offensive, I am just trying to get across my point of view.)I have never known where we draw these boundaries, and I dont want to begin either.Sorry,it is morning and my thoughts are not very coherent as of now.If I think of something more logical, I would post later. :-)

Faruk #334 The comparisons you make are arbitrary and subjective: e.g. if you mention strikes against Indira, I can mention strikes against Ayub in 1966 that were in large part driven by public disgust against Ayub`s propaganda campaign regarding his ``decade of development`` (the pakistan counterpart of the 1960`s to the BJP ``india shining`` propaganda campaign) in the face of rising prices of sugar and other things. People took to the streets at the time, five or ten demonstrators actually sacrificed their lives leading to soldiers becoming resentful leading the army to refuse to shoot at demonstrators anymore, leading to Ayub being forced out of office. And the resistance to Zia`s hellish repression (as I mentioned below) also indicates the same thing.

No doubt the military is strong in Pakistan and needs to be cut to size. But from all indications (some I already described), musharaff has taken irreversible actions that can only serve to cut down the military to its legitimate functions of defense only. Pakistan for example has a long tradition of free press (suppressed at times no doubt, but never totally dead, and certainly alive and well today); lawyers and journalists have played wonderful roles in defense of democracy in pakistan.; the replacement of the powerful civil service (the heart of the pakistan establishment in many ways) with locally elected nazims (i recently wrote an article on chowk on this); and so on. So, keep your fingers crossed, keep your chauvinists like Advani in check, and have faith in Pakistan (even though you are Indian, I know).

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

Jokesharp, right on, smartaleck, I meant the Jana Sangh.

tahmed 32, I mean all conservative people, of all religions, of all parties, are like this, not just the RSS. Indian women have advanced by leaps and bounds, whereas the men still can`t quite believe what`s happened. I don`t know what makes the Scandinavians the way they are, but I think the money helps. :)

Re : tahmed32 #333
“So, lets not blame the victims - the Pakistani people - for events that were outside their control. “

Do you really believe that the events have been beyond their control. Pakistani’s like to draw parallels with India, so let me draw one here. The only time our democracy/rights/civil liberties were threatened after independence was during the emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi. There were mass protests people courted arrests in thousands and Indira Gandhi was forced to hold elections and she lost badly. So when have Pakistani’s protested the loss of their democracy/rights/civil liberties.

Pakistan will have democracy when average Pakistanis want it more than anything else. The Pakistani establishment isn’t going to just roll over and die by itself.

Regards,

Faruk

Re: tahmed32 # 330

``Its just that the muslim counterparts of BJP in Pakistan never did anywhere close as BJP has done in elections.``

This is not true after the last elections in Pakistan. I am not sure how this is relevant to your argument either. In Pakistan the military directly or indirectly is in control. Musshharrf is right that it’s the only institution left intact in Pakistan. That is because it has devoured every other institution.


In India the BJP was elected to Power but there were 21 other parties to check its power. Apart from that we have the courts, the press and other institutions to check the power of the government. Pakistan needs institutions that check the power of the govt. to be a democracy.


Regards,

Faruk

#330 by tahmed32 on June 13, 2004 10:29am PT

``Its just that the muslim counterparts of BJP in Pakistan never did anywhere close as BJP has done in elections.``

tahmed32 you`re right when you say this. But isn`t it also true that the Pakistan Army would never have allowed the `muslim counterparts of the BJP in Pakistan` to do well in elections. And even if they did, as was the case in the last elections, the army would find ways and means to keep them from power, as the General did by brining in a `King`s Party`. In India, the army has made no such intereference with the electoral process. It has never even been in a position to do so. Weird, huh?

#328 by nb on June 13, 2004 8:25am PT

``Look, even 15 years ago, ``respectable``, educated people didn`t vote for the RSS. ``

Ahem. There`s a good reason why no one, leave aside `respectable, educated people`, voted for the RSS. The RSS has never contested elections.

nikki #331 I agree with most of your post, with some exceptions. The fact that democracy has survived and consolidated its hold in India is a blessing not just for India but for the neighboring countries (including Pakistan) and indeed for the rest of the world.

The roots of military meddling in politics in Pakistan reside, I think, in historical events: Unlike India, Pakistan lacked a political leader of national stature after Jinnah died. No general would have dared to stand up to Jinnah. On the other hand pakistani military`s prestige rose due to a number of pacts (CENTO, SEATO) that it engaged in, and the Eisenhower administration developed close personal ties with then Ayub Khan. And once Ayub Khan set a precedence with his 1958 coup, the military never stepped very far from power. So, lets not blame the victims - the Pakistani people - for events that were outside their control.

Despite this history, I think there are important underlying factors that are enabling Pakistan to chart out its own path to democracy. The most important is the growth of a large middle class and the large expat community that also has by and large a positive impact on pakistan (pakistan`s economic team currently is virtually all expat pakistanis who have given up highly successful careers in international agencies in the US to go back, e.g.). Indeed, ironically enough, musharaff, despite all his faults, has sown the seed in a number of ways for democracy to evolve in pakistan. The local self-governments that replaced the powerful civil service that had served as the handmaiden to military dictators in the past being one. I also think that the example set by India is another factor. So, dont count Pakistan out. I have always said that this ugly duckling of the south asian pond will emerge one day as a swan, and I think I will live to see that day. :-)

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

nb #328 I feel your pain, bro :-) We cant make scandinavians out of our maulvis just as you cant do the same with the RSS.

Recalling that Scandinavians are descended from vikings, the terrorists of first millenium europe, there is nevertheless hope yet. If mankind can survive another few centuries (decades??) without wiping itself out.

harish_hyd #326 I dont disagree with you: while hindu fanaticism was alive and well at the time Gandhi was assassinated, the vast majority of the indian population (regardless of religion) was concerned with roti, kapda aur makaan. As was evidenced in the recent elections in India, e.g.

All I am saying is, that the same is true of pakistan or muslims or any other community of people. Its just that the muslim counterparts of BJP in Pakistan never did anywhere close as BJP has done in elections. Similarly, just as RSS was banned in India once, the Godfather of the maulvis, Maudoodi, was once under a death sentence in Pakistan (in the 1950`s). Clearly, fanatics have strengthened, not weakened, over time in both India and Pakistan, given the greater acceptance of these extremists in both countries. Maybe things will get better from here as government level relations improve, but lets keep our fingers crossed.

All we can do as individuals is to use our own eyes and minds, and not allow us to be swayed by government propoganda lines or driven by fanatics into demonizing or even negative stereotyping of other communities (as seems to exist even among educated people in the subcontinent, as easily evidenced on chowk).

tahmed, the forerunner of the RSS, was banned for some years after Gandhi was killed, and apparently not a whimper of open protest. Personally, to me, this indicates a non-democratic society, but I suppose I should consider that the Brits had just left. I guess though, it does mean they wouldn`t have won a vote for Most Popular. Look, even 15 years ago, ``respectable``, educated people didn`t vote for the RSS. I have a great-uncle who joined the RSS in 1989-90, and my grandmother said with conviction, ``I always knew there was something wrong with him.`` They are very backward when it comes to women, but kya karen, they`re all like that, I can`t make them all Scandinavians. They`ll learn.

#291 by tahmed32

[And certainly hindu fanaticism was alive and well when Gandhi was killed, obviously.]

Our Pakistani friends never tire of pointing out that Pakistan is a moderate society and most Pakistanis are more worried about roti, kapda aur makaan than religion, inspite of the fact that bloodshed is a routine in Pakistan and barely a day passes without news of some violent incident. But just the one incident of Mahatma Gandhi`s assassination is sufficient for them to declare that Hindu fanaticism was alive and well even in the 40s.

sparchus #325 I am well aware sir of the way of thinking of 90 percent indians when they first come to chowk, having seen it for years by now on chowk, and your post is no exception. So lets not waste one another`s time exchanging ridicule. bye bye.

#323
Mr tahmed32 what are your current views on mia musharraf sir?as an indian i am really curious to know that does islam make a person that submissive that they forget about their rights too?

Talking about the muslim heart.
I just fail to understand what these muslim guys and gals want out of life.wherever in the world they are not in a majority they fail to adjust and live with others.now everybody but the muslim could not be at fault for this right?
Take muslim minorities with christians.USA, Russia,France,former Yugoslavia.They are just not willing to live in peace.no sir, we cannot live with kafirs can we?we want our own damn islamic republic or a kinghdom or dictatorship which would be even better.
Muslims with jews.Better not talk about it.
Musims with hindus.India has been ravaged by their rampant population explosion, backwardness and a rigidity to change.
now it seems they have a spat coming up with buddhists in sri lanka and china.
they had already displaced the zoarastrians from iran ages back.
what next?
Beware, the Lapps of finland.do not allow muslims into your midst or we could see some kind of terrorist activitity in scandidavia too!!!

dost mittar #321 I dont think you mean the ``hudood bill``. That was actually an ordinance passed by zia (nawaz sharif had nothing to do with it) back in 1979 as part of a series of ordinances and actions he took after hanging bhutto in his attempt to turn pakistan into an ``islamic state``. I think a careful study of the hudood ordinance and the broader package of evil actions zia and what happened when he tried that will reinforce the earlier point i was making:

Briefly, the ``package`` included (a) public lashings of journalists in his failed attempt to curb free speech, and (b) saudi-like punishments of chopping of hands of ``thieves``. On (a), despite his cruel attempts, the journalists stood their ground and he had to back off ultimately. He tried placing a mike next to the journalist during public lashings in an attempt to intimidate the public with the cries of agony of the journalists being lashed - didnt work. as i understand, the journalists just used the mike to continue speaking out against the government. so they took the mikes away. On (b), every single pakistani doctor who was asked to chop off hands (surgically) refused on grounds of ethical principles. Finally, the b!astard gave up on trying to ``islamize`` pakistanis into submission, and (as Ambassador Kux of the US State Department writes in his book on US-Pakistan relations) decided to move to more fertile ground in afghanistan by using the taliban as his cats paw to take over that country...and the rest is history. hudood and blasphemy laws continue to this day of course despite public pressure.

thus, even a cold-blooded and ruthless dictator like zia could not succeed in introducing maudoodism (I refuse to call it islam, since the kinds of actions described above represent an insult to the true spirit of islam) in pakistan. that is why i am optimist regarding the future of pakistan as a progressive and secular nation.


coming back to nawaz sharif, i think i already discussed the constitutional amendment, and i suppose you and i can agree to disagree in our interpretations. while no doubt his inviting of vajpayee was too much for musharaff to accept who promptly sabotaged it with kargill, the fact is that the military had more basic reasons for resenting civilian politicians (namely, they had the goal of giving the military a constitutional role in the government).

AlephNull #309: Yes indeed. We could all benefit from enlightenment.

tahmed32:
``That is, given the lack of public support (and indeed strong resentment, including a case in the high court that received much publicity by challenging this as unconstitutional), there is no doubt the army guessed it could challenge sharif, and this guess was correct. So, I think you just proved my point.``

I am glad you think so. But I do not think that the army action was popular because of the hadood bill, although it did make Nawaz unpopular in the English elite class. There were more important reasons: he had antagonised the mullah-army nexus by inviting and warming up to Vajpayee; he had shown tremendous arrogance even against the supreme court of Pakistan; he messed with the Pakistani army; and he became victim of Kargil in the same way Ayub had become a victim of Tashkent - namely the Pakistanis were led to believe that they had won the war in Kargil, and his withdrawal of troops after a visit to Washington was considered as losing the battles won by the brave Pakistani soldiers under the American pressure. One could even argue that the Hadood bill was an attempt to consolidate his support for a face-off with the powerful army brass.

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

rahul_capri #316
Correct. But currently I doubt any one will get anywhere (except the morgue) arguing that the Quran is not divine.

That is where IMO, doing things the `right` way in India is very important.

Instead of setting up a head-on confrontation, as long as Indian Muslims have the option to subscribe to secular law in most or all matters if they so wish, and Indian Muslim women are enabled do well in `secular` matters, core deep-rooted religious beliefs need not be meddled with, just like with other Indians.

When I argue this way, I think of how Gandhiji`s approach to reform of untouchability was considered `too slow` and `too patronizing` by Dalits. A full frontal attack was what was called for in that case - which led to laws outlawing untouchability and affirmative action.

Dr. Ambedkar preferred an even more frontal attack - he wanted Gandhiji to disown Vedic Hinduism altogether. Ambedkar argued that the Vedas are considered divine and contain the seeds of varna and hence untouchability. As long as the Vedas are considered divine, varna and hence untouchability would persist.

IMO, that solution would have been too radical and moreover politically untenable, because you had to get all Hindus to disown the Vedas, not just Gandhiji. All you would get by asking Hindus to disown the Vedas wholesale is an infintely more virulent violent form of BJP/VHP, regardless of the fact that the percentage of Hindus who ever even read the Vedas is miniscule.

And Gandhiji did have a point in his social reform approach, too, because while laws outlawing untouchability were absolutely the right thing to do, promulgating law gives only limited benefit until the underlying social attitudes are changed too via social reform movements. That involves reaching out to the entire Hindu community and changing attitudes across the board. Including myself, so clearly I can speak about it.

In the case of Muslim personal law, questioning the divinity of the Quran is wholly Muslims` prerogative, IMO.

In addition it might be solely for Muslims to decide what is appropriate in this case, social reform or legal measures. Or it might not. I would for instance like some insight into whether it is indeed my business or none of my business, - should I be a nonbusybody majority who does not meddle with minority autonomy or should I be a busybody Indian trying to extend the principle of equality to every other Indian.

Sorry, this was a long post.

sadna #308
``IMO, the underlying issue could be more basic than merely the desire to wield power of religious scholars. ``
Yes, along with that they are MCPs in a society in which the females are oppressed. Its just that the mullah has the stick of the Quran with him.If suppose, the pandit, had the stick of,say Gita, with him, he would have done the same.
dost-mittar #313
``Now if I were a patriotic muslim reading your post, do you think that I would remain patriotic after reading it? ``
Your question has some significance but it is not entirely valid.Patriotism is not belief in some nationalistic ideology.It is not the hatred of the enemy country but the love of your own.Its the attachment to the place where you grow up and where you form your opinion.It does not go away just because of a few questions.

As usual, Omar. I`m saying Murdoch has no street cred on Iraq.He allied himself with the US, yet that little paper defied him. Indian journos are probably impressed you have the courage to go to work. If Dawood lived in my neighbourhood, I`d be worried too..
You don`t get anything, or you`re being perverse. I do think it might be the latter.
For someone who doesn`t care about what Indians think about him, you send an inordinate number of posts addressed to (at?) Indians, and telling me what a wonderful paper Dawn is.
Why which country?Thought you didn`t care.