The Doll’s House

harmiau: #127 I did not read your post. I have wasted enough time with you.

Ref FarzanaVersey #396

[Is it? Will you remember it the next time you fling the Shia-Sunni-Wahabi-Deobandi-Ahmediya-Ismaili-Bohra differences in the general Muslim direction?]

I will need to go to Islamic scholars like Mullah32 to tell me the exact doctrinaire differences between these sects. However, aren`t at least a couple of them (Wahabi and Deobandi) claiming to be the strict interpreters of the literal word of the Koran? For all I know, the Shias are also claiming the same and probably even the Ahmadiyyas.

As to your claim that Muslims are forced to join the Hindu mainstream by a variety of ingenious and evil Hindu machinations, can we attribute the selling of beef to the Indian Army by a Jain businessman in New Delhi to the pressure exterted on the very tiny Jain minority by the much larger Muslim population around Delhi to join the Islamic mainstream? Or should we blame it on the unethical business sense of the Jains?

As to the gentrification of the sect of assassins originating from Iran into the most progressive Muslim community in the world (I am of course referring here to the Islamic sect headed by the Aga Khan), whom do you want to blame for this co-opting and transformation? Just when Islam is in danger in Chechnya, Bosnia, Iraq and of course Kashmir and the world could use mujahiddeens of all stripes, you guys have lost an entire group of poisoners, stranglers and cut-throats. Even the Ismaili community in the Land of the Pure is contaminated with the so-called mainstream virus (could it be called that when 97% of the population of Pakistan is Muslim?) and is beyond redemption.

I was reminded of my Muslim driver`s statement that his family is practically vegetarian because he can`t afford mutton at Rs. 180 a kilo. Is this yet another subtle pressure on Indian Muslims to join the mainstream vegetarian culture or just economic reality faced by a man with exactly one skill, that of driving a car? If he with a monthly paycheck couldn`t afford mutton, what chance does a poor Muslim in UP have of eating mutton? Whom do we blame this on? Is this mere Hindufication or, horror of horrors according to the mullah brigade, even Brahminisation?

[I addressed this article to the Hindus, so if you got it, then it is ok by me…interestingly the three Pakistanis you mentioned do not particularly like me…]

One doesn`t have to like you to agree with you. The three Pakistanis I mentioned are regulars on Chowk who catch on to your writings as proof that Hindutva-wadis like me are inflicting untold torture on Indian Muslims.

Jang, dost mittar
religously motivated separatism should not be yielded too. The logic between regional nationalism and supra regional nationalism lies in devolving maximum possible power to the lowest possible level, that implies maximising participative democracy and giving people the greatest possible control over their destinies.It is for this reason that US states have such powers, and so do US districts, schools, municipalities etc. even in India the whole Panchayati Raj movement has the same motivation. I cannot talk authoritatively about other areas of state rights but having studied economics I know that in India states cannot impose any income taxes. all your income taxes go to the centre which then decides how they will be allocated, In the US you must have noticed you pay income taxes to the state and the center.

In large Supranational states with a weak federal character or strong center the provinces dont have much say in economic matters of taxation and spending, can you imagine Nagaland having much say in how the Union of India will spend its revenue? or say Chechenya having much say over those of the russian federation. Even if you compare the size of the central and concurrent list to that of the state in india and the US you will see the difference. (in most of the concurrant list the center over rules the province in case of conflict).

Even if no real change were to occur in spending and development such devolution is important because it gives the provinces a feeling of being incharge and removes some of the causes of alienation. recently Gurcharan Das wrote an article in the times of india asking Mani Shankar Aiyar to devolve some serious power to village pnchayats, such as disbursement of salaries and hiring/firing of school teachers and nurses/doctors runnig clinics and dispensaries so that they could enforce their attendance and delivery of services just as they do in the US.

Rajsingh

I hope the above answers your query ``What more autonomy do you have in mind when you say the above? Are states not based on federal structure?``

regarding:
``Whatever upliftment has been in almost every field, be it agriculture/eocnomic/literacy/social issues, is it not because of strong center?``

If all the development had occured due to the center Rajsingh the development indicators would not have diverged as much as they do between Kerala and UP/Bihar, or even those between neighbouring Tamil Naad and Kerala. States such as Westbengal and Kerala have high literacy where as neighbouring bihar and close by andhra do not. Similarly on the Economic front Maharashtra and gujrat are ahead of Orrisa and Andhra.

Lastly Lincoln disallowed succession, when the question was expansion of slavery, the reason the civil war started was that southern states wanted to spread slavery to the new states and territories in the West, which the northeners would not allow, not because the north was outlawing slavery in the south, infact the reason slavery lasted as long as it did in the south is because the union and the north continued unnecessarily respecting their right because of the fear of war. even in this the first shots were not fired by lincoln, it was the Southern states which wanted to take over fort sumter.

The gradual increase in the rights of the union is largely a twentieth century phenomenon but still it is nowhere close to India or Russia.

By the way HP you said

`` The act of India in 1935 was meant to relinquish some of the powers that British inherited to the provinces. The Act of India specified what powers center has and what belongs to the provinces. The act was passed after realization that an all powerful center would eventual give rise to separatists’ movements in the outlaying provinces``

The act was not passed because of fear of separatist movements, it was passed so as to devolve more power to the natives, who were increasingly demanding independence and it was part of a movement of self governement started by the british with the morley minto reforms of 1911, continued with themntague chelmsford ones of 1919 etc.

Ref Mullah32 #411

[Interestingly, I have never heard a peep from anyone out of you in all these years on what BJP did to mess up the indian school curriculum. And yet I read about it in the front page of the Washington Post when BJP fell, and this was a major program administered by the BJP to glorify history. And I can see the results for myself in the form of Harimau and others who seem to have their minds programmed with only one thing - hatred for pakistan, for muslims, while trying to glorify India to the point of absurdity.]

Correcting history as written by self-loathing Hindus, Marxists bent upon sacrificing India to China and JNU historians toadying to the Nehru clan is NOT messing up the school curriculum.

I don`t think a single schoolbook asks what happened to tens of thousands of centuries-old Hindu temples in North India even under the so-called ``saffronization of the education system under the BJP``.

Pointing out that India had a rich cultural history before the British arrived and before the Islamic sultans arrived is NOT revisionism, no matter how much you have been taught that the only architecture worth preserving is Islamic, the only book that needs to be read is the Koran abd the only religion worth following is Islam.

ankit #415 Excellent post. Good governance requires common sense and a small handful of universal principles (in fact only one, the categorical imperitive of Kant will do). Religion is a personal matter designed to provide peace and inner strength to the individual, and dragging it into politics corrupts both religion and governance.

HP
In the case of Kashmir my concept of ``ana`` is specifically restricted to nationalist vanity . Raju in India doesnt care about historical arguments he is only concerned about not being seconded by Pakistan, so too for colonel abdul in pakistan and i assume aslam in pindi is also happy as long as iqbal in baramulla is. hence the need to find a solution without loosing face, if ``ana`` rules all is lost.

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

So HP and Hindvi

why is nationalism only an unworthy vague notion whereas regional separatism (specially religiously supported) sacred? to me it seems like a fair fight between a big mafia don and an underling trying to establish its own fiefdom.

#415

This is exactly the kind of trash that invites ` join the mainstream` comments.

A condemnation of terrorist operation by a muslim organization involves sentences like ` Islamic law does not permit killing of innocents`. Screw what the Islamic Law says, cant you say that this is against human values?

You see the same thing here. A member of planning commission should do better than provide arguments like `Quran gives equal right to men and women`! Who cares what the Quran says? Will this member be comfortable if others start saying Vedas dont give permission for this or that?

tahmed#40:
...is saad-gi pe kaun na mar jaye meray khuda!

but be careful! in seeking to be the defender of the faith for the 21st century you might end up being a munaafqeen :-).

More seriously, when the need arises, who do you think the ordinary abdul is going to ask for a fatwa - you or the local mullah? By fatwa, I mean opinion and not an edict. For example, there is the current question of whether the practice of yoga is unislamic or not. The grand mufti of Egypt has declared that it is unislamic as its roots are in the hindu scriptures. You would probably say that islam has nothing to do with yoga and it is just a matter of individual preference. Now, some modern muslims like you may not agree with the mufti but I think that the ordinary abdul will listen to his local mullah who, in turn, will listen to the opinion of the grand mufti. For what it is worth, I think that the mufti is right, the origin of yoga lies indeed in ancient hindu scriptures, but so does almost everything with its roots on the subcontinent - medicine (ayurveda), dance, music and art. To me, the proper response is not to say that the yoga is not associated with another religion but to say, ``so what?``.

hindvi/hp:
The Indian constitution is okay for a federation. The problem is not the constitution itself but the way it was trifled with during the earlier congress rule, starting with Nehru`s removal of the Akali PEPSU govt. and the communist Kerala govt. The constitution of a federation should and the Indian constitution does provide for a strong centre and a strong state in their respective areas of jurisdiction. The problem in India and other federation (including Canada and to some extent the U.S) is that the centre has the overwhelming power to raise revenues and it can use its spending powers to interfere in the provincial jurisdiction. India, in fact, has taken concrete steps to resolve this problem by setting up an indepedent finance commission to allocate resources to states.
In future I see two problems to the Indian federation: one resolving inter-state disputes such as relating to water between punjab-haryana and kannada-tamil nadu; the other being of uneven economic and population growth where the population is growing in the poor hindi belt and the economy in the southern and western belt. Therefore, the political weight might shift in one direction and economic in the other thus causing some friction.

HP

Post#418

Quote:

`` The act was passed after realization that an all powerful center would eventual give rise to separatists’ movements in the outlaying provinces. That is besides the point that despite the 1935 act the provinces on both flanks of the center asked for more rights and that eventually led to creation of Pakistan as the concept of provincial rights was mixed up with the religious factionalism that was part of the central India politics. ``

Let us try to put things in certain perspective. British were colonists so their perception in doing things was very different from whatever are or were the legitimate reasons for the local govt. Perceptions of both would be different and any attempt to merge them or see from the point of view from a colonists would not help in understanding the things better.

Since British were colonists so they thought, a strong center may go against their interests. They were the oppressors and they knew (?) it. Now that cannot be said about the local govt/s. A strong Center made the local people is very different from that. Strong center is more for the betterment of the locals whereas when it colonists, it is/was more about oppressing and perpetuating the rule of colonists.

Look at US history itself. Lincoln went for strong center only to retain/have the territorial integrity of the country. In the process, he made many compromises but overall, it had been about strong center. Without strong center, USA of today would not have had been what it is territorially and otherwise.

Harimau

Post #398

Quote:

`` Somewhere in one of your posts you used the word ``marhaba``. What does it mean? My b-in-law in Bomay lives in a building named ``Marhaba`` and he can`t tell me the meaning and I am dying of curiosity. ``

Though I am not sure but think meaning should be on the lines of Welcome, Hello/Hi.

Does remind me of a line from a hindi film song, sung by Mohd Rafi and Asha Bhonsle..in Great Gambler movie....

Marhaba, ai dilruba.....tauba...ya habibi
marhaba ai dilruba...
tareef kay kaabil hai tu
Ik haseen qatil hai tu
................

#408 by hindvi
Hindvi,

Good post!
“Kashmir is that all the intellectual/politico-human reasons aside at the ``core`` it’s a question of ``ana``.”

I think you have touched the concept of “ana” but have not translated it into political concept.

The “ana’ that you are referring to appears and what India has, basically emanates from the partition. The Indian National congress and people reject the partition and are scared of any demands for political and economic rights from different states and other segments of population and without much ado translate that into demands for separation.

This is also a residue of the British attempt to enforce the central government on all India. Both Congress and the ML subscribed to this “strong center” mumbo jumbo as they considered themselves successors of the British Raj more than the parties that fought for the economic and political rights of the people. But the concept of the central govt failed even during the British times. The act of India in 1935 was meant to relinquish some of the powers that British inherited to the provinces. The Act of India specified what powers center has and what belongs to the provinces. The act was passed after realization that an all powerful center would eventual give rise to separatists’ movements in the outlaying provinces. That is besides the point that despite the 1935 act the provinces on both flanks of the center asked for more rights and that eventually led to creation of Pakistan as the concept of provincial rights was mixed up with the religious factionalism that was part of the central India politics.

The Indian constitution in terms of provincial rights and autonomy derives from the India Act as the source document (a few provisions about rivers etc are different) and since that time there has not been any attempt to review those provincial rights.( The three lists in the Indian Constitution (Union, State and Concurrent)). So far, in 50 years, the Indian Constitution has been amended about 70 times. For example, Mrs. Gandhi amended it to add the ``Socialist`` word but how many of those amendments pertain to the three lists mentioned above? (I was unable to find the answer to that)

Pakistan adopted the same India Act as almost its constitution until 1956 when center usurped the provincial rights that were part of the 1935 India Act. That attempt by Pakistani centrist led to separation of Bengal and rise of the Military as the enforcer of the “strong Center”.
The situation in India is partially different. The Indian constitution did not extend the provincial rights but the provinces forced it thru the democratic process. The two centralist parties in India Congress and BJP are now depended upon the support form the provincial or state centric parties for forming the govt in the center and that allows leeway to the provinces in lieu of the guaranteed rights in the constitution.

Still, the concept of the strong center has such legitimacy in Indian govt and in the north Indian provinces that even minor digression or economic demands by other sections of the provinces/states are treated as separation attempts. I would call that the partition syndrome rather than “ana”, that has taken over the psyche of the Indian legislature and the central govt and is in part responsible for the mess in Kashmir. What you are calling “ana” is actually not “ana” but the partition syndrome or the fear factor.

Farzana Versey

Post#415

Quote:

`` subhanallah..``

Might interest you to know that it is/was late Majrooh Sultanpuri who popularised, and `perhaps` coined words/phrases like these. Including this one.

Another one that comes to mind is: Shah-e-khooban...guess, it means, queen of beauty..

And there certainly are some more...I do not recall those as of now..

Btw subhanallah could be....in the glory of god..

Harimau

I am reasonably sure that Marhaba means, Welcome, Hello/Hi...

harimau:

Not too sure about what marhabba means, but it sounds like a positive exclamation, like subhanallah..ya habibi is beloved...just in case you get curious again!
- - -
One more view on Gudiya...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/872153.cms

Woman as Gudiya: Her Ordeal Amounts to Negation of Islam
- SYEDA HAMEED

The Gudiya episode gives us an opportunity to examine the
Qur`an and its spirit vis-a-vis women. During the Prophet`s
time, women freely questioned him on their status in the holy
book. Tabari, in his treatise on the history of Islam, records
that the Prophet`s wife Umm Salama had asked her husband, `Why
are men mentioned in the Qur`an and why are we not?` It was
after this query that the following lines were revealed in
verse 35 of Surah 33, Al Ahzab : For believing men and women/
For true men and women/ For devout men and women.../ For them
has Allah prepared/ Forgiveness and a great reward.

The issue of masawaat or equality of men and women is once and
for all settled in these lines. Allah spoke of the two sexes
in terms of total equality. Having established this, the next
text to turn to is Surah Al Nisa (The Women) containing laws
on marriage, divorce, property and conduct. These were
revolutionary verses which overturned pre-Islamic practices.

Surah Al Nisa not only laid down the law that women could no
longer, as cattle and camels, be inherited by men but that
they could themselves inherit. They could enter into
competition with men for sharing of fortunes. The Qur`anic
lines are ``Unto the men belongs a share of what the parents
and near kindred leave and unto women a share of what the
parents and near kindred leave``. These verses must have
shattered the foundations of the patriarchal structures of
Medina. Little wonder that the Prophet had to suffer immensely
at the hands of the qabilas (tribes) for the boldness of his
anti-establishment views.

What does this have to do with the story of Gudiya — the woman
who suddenly found her world turned upside down because of the
unexpected appearance of her husband who was presumed dead? In
Islam, all three individuals enjoy equal rights. In this
regard, the Preamble to the Indian Constitution, which
promises ``equality of status and opportunity`` to all citizens
is, in my view, very much imbued with the Islamic spirit.

There are two long Surahs — Surah Al Baqr and Surah Al Nisa —
that are replete with injunctions about how women should be
treated. In marriage, for example, a girl`s consent is
mandatory. At the time of Nikah, the Qazi must ask the girl if
she is giving consent of her free will. No matter how sparse
the Nikahnama, the girl, along with the boy, must affix her
signature. It is another matter that girls who say `Yes` or
who sign the register often have no choice. But that is the
fault of the practitioners of Islam, not of the religious
injunction.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in his Tarjuman-ul-Qur`an writes about
this ``malaise`` of the Muslims: ``Instead of remaining in the
Book of Allah, the fountainhead of hidaya (teaching)
transferred into the hands of a few individuals. They turned
the people blind and deaf and used them for their selfish
ends. People became immersed in superstition and ignorance.
Thus all the paths to the progress of human intellect were
firmly shut.``

As in all matters, on the subject of divorce too, the Qur`an
gives equal rights to women and men. Just as the man can
divorce, so can the woman. The only difference is that in her
case, the woman must approach the Qazi for Khula. This was
done because traditional Arab society still had a long way to
go before internalising Islam`s egalitarian concept.

Let us consider Arif, Gudiya and Taufiq in the above context.
Gudiya has literally been treated like a doll. The parents
marry her off (to Arif), very likely without her informed
consent. The man leaves for duty at the border within a month
of marriage. Then he disappears for five years, assumed
``missing in action`` (read dead). Then Gudiya`s parents, with
the knowledge of Arif`s parents, marry her off to her cousin,
Taufiq. There is no question of seeking a divorce because she
is assumed to be a widow and Islam strongly favours widow
remarriage.

The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (1939) states that ``A
woman married under Muslim law shall be entitled to obtain a
decree for the dissolution of her marriage`` on several
grounds. The very first ground is ``that the whereabouts of her
husband have not been known for period of four years``. This
act was piloted by the famous scholar Maulana Asraf Ali Thanwi
who wanted to rescue women from the odious practice of having
to wait 99 years for the husband to turn up. In every era,
enlightened Maulanas and others have fought for the rights of
women. Today, who will fight for Gudiya?

The Muslim Women`s Forum as well as other organisations,
Muslim and non-Muslim, take up the cause of Muslim women. For
us, the spirit of Islam and the Shariat lies in the first few
words spoken by Gudiya when she heard that Arif had been found
and was soon to be released. Gudiya, pregnant with their first
child, said she wanted to stay with Taufiq. ``Marriage is not
child`s play, sometimes here sometimes there. I love my
husband and will stay with him for life,`` she said. What is
paramount, according to Islamic principles, is Gudiya`s
choice. The cruelty and injustice meted out to Gudiya violates
this concept.

(The author is a Planning Commission member)
(Women`s Feature Service)