The Doll’s House

Hindvi

Post#408

Quote:

`` the problem is India might not, for the centralised structure of the indian constitution and the nehru Indira state has been such that any major demand for autonomy has been looked upon as separatist, this has escalated conflicts and thus proved a self fulfiling prophecy, resulting in long running separatist movements which have in turn hardened India`s position. ``

What more autonomy do you have in mind when you say the above? Are states not based on federal structure?

Quote:

`` None of this would have happened had india, a country with many sub nationalities, adopted a lose federal structure at independence or at any time since. india had a problem with drawing a line in the sand, it drew it too tightly and hence looked at any attempt to smudge it as seditionary. if it had instead drawn it firmly but more expansively these troubles may have been handled more easily or may not have arisen at all. thus the reluctance to compromise with separatists of any hue, since it would be seen as weakness. ``

Keeping in mind that there were many Indias in the making at the time of partition, besides Pakistan, what else could have made political India if not strong center? Is it not that India became stable, a proper political entity mainly because of strong center? Whatever upliftment has been in almost every field, be it agriculture/eocnomic/literacy/social issues, is it not because of strong center?

dost mittar #404 I understand that you were bringing that point in some different context and have no doubt that you did not use it to demonize muslims. However, as I said, given that too many of your countrymen are only too happy to find any fault with muslims, and given the physical violence conducted against muslims in india, it would seem useful not to give them any more rocks to lob at muslims. You may be analyzing the rock in some other context, but for others it is just another rock to throw at muslims. Anyway, enough said. You are a good man, and I have no desire to needlessly point fingers at you.

On the definition of the term kafir that you suggest, I think now we can talk something more interesting: To me the substantive distinction the Quran makes is between good and evil, not between religions. Thus, on the Judgement Day, it says the ``Companions of the Right Hand`` (the ones who did good in their earthly lives) will be separated from the ``Companions of the Left Hand`` (the ones who did not, and so will be marched off to hell). And so the latter can be called kafirs. This would certainly make sense to me on the basis of the Quran. It has an important implication: The Quran also makes it clear that God reserves for himself the authority to decide who did good and who did evil in his earthly life. It follows, that if any individual calls any other individual (or people of any other faith) a ``kafir``, he is committing the biggest sin of all in Islam (namely, arrogating to himself a level of authority that God has denied to any man). The distinction between muslim and hindu then, does not coincide (indeed is orthogonal to) with the distinction between a kafir and a nonkafir. (Since the Quran makes it clear that ALL individuals will be judged regardless of religion, and the judgement would be based on how well they distinguished good from evil during their earthly life.

The above definition and discussion would of course be anathema to the maulvi - whose main purpose is to gain power, and a key element of that is the authority to declare anyone a ``kafir``. But mullahs are hardly representative of muslims at large anyway - in pakistan (as we all know) religious parties have never been successful until recently when the military found them a convenient tool to use for their own ends. It would be anathema to the hindutva as well, since it takes the demonization of islam as being a religion that preaches hatred away. Islam brings the message of peace, and it claims no monopoly on this message and calls for respect for all religions. This is the fundamental truth that no religious fanatic - hindutva or maulvi - can coverup over a blanket of deception.

The latest on anti-polio drive:
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=56338
Poets take on polio in UP
After ad drives and directives to maulanas, the UP government is turning to verse to take on polio. Mushairas are the government’s latest move to rid itself of the ‘worst-hit’ tag in the country.

#400 by AlephNull

You are wasting your time on this guy - He is a certified koran-thumper who has been trying hard to white-wash the Book. For him ``kafir`` is very innocuous term and has no racist connotation whatsover - where as the facts on the ground are very different.

In the La-La land where tahemd lives - koran is a perfectly godly book - only that the evil mullahs have made it look bad. Even though people have reproduced direct verses from the book which directly exhorts the followers to kill kufrs, among other things.

This guy is like an ostrich. he thinks if he buries his head under arabian sand - the fault-lines and problems so very apparent in Islam is just going to go away. Unfortuanately - he is not alone in this. Vast majority of muslims are behaving that way.

In fact - there is running article right now on the chowk front page - heaping scorn on the reformist canadian-muslim Irshad Manji - one of the very few muslims trying to reform and rescue Islam.

hamidm

the problem with Kashmir is that all the intellectual/politico-human reasons aside at the ``core`` its a question of ``ana``. So either it will be fought until the last drop of blood is drained from every kashmiri or a face saving compromise for both sides has to be found.

musharraf i think might agree to a face saver, the problem is India might not, for the centralised structure of the indian constitution and the nehru Indira state has been such that any major demand for autonomy has been looked upon as separatist, this has escalated conflicts and thus proved a self fulfiling prophecy, resulting in long running separatist movements which have in turn hardened India`s position. Minor political settlements along with some brutal suppression have controlled some conflicts other have continued to burn intermittently. this has been possible because the parts that burn are small relative to the centre. And the centre itself is poor and overpopulated providing a ready supply of fodder for the security forces and an indifference to brutality, in a life that is anyway harsh. plus over the years the press has also largely been pliant, suppresing information and playing a nationalist line painting all separatists as terrorists, leaving the few who might be concerned misinformed. This is changing now though with better access to information.

None of this would have happened had india, a country with many sub nationalities, adopted a lose federal structure at independence or at any time since. india had a problem with drawing a line in the sand, it drew it too tightly and hence looked at any attempt to smudge it as seditionary. if it had instead drawn it firmly but more expansively these troubles may have been handled more easily or may not have arisen at all. thus the reluctance to compromise with separatists of any hue, since it would be seen as weakness.

Now in the case of Kashmir all of this is further complicated by orders of magnitude because of the nature of Indo Pakistani interaction, the fact that these separatists are supported by them and by the fact that they are muslims (with all the baggage hindu muslim interactions have in the subcontinent) making any granting of autonomy, be looked upon as giving into pakistan, this is what i mean by ``ana``. This is mixed with a righteous anger as the dominant discourse in media, politics etc is of pakistani sponsored terrorism. thus there is broad nationalist - anti pakistani (and disguised anti muslim) support for this in India.

On the Pakistani side the media and state have played up the human rights violation and utilised pan muslim sympathy into making it a human rights/muslim rights issue and this is the way the public view it. For the military in addition to it being amuslim /human issue it is also a question of ``Ana`` due to the nature of their interactions with india.

Nonetheless their is also some movement in india in recent times for the issue to be settled just as their is in Pakistan (Musharraf too seems to want that) but nobody in india wants to give away land.

the only kind of settlements that could arise are those where the border between the two Kashmirs is obliterated, Indian and Pakistani Forces move out of their respective parts of kashmir, and maintain observers at the boundary. the method of local goverment could be confederal or Kashmiri but sovereignty over either part rest with the respective country and legally the part continue to belong to it.

but for this india wil have to be coaxed and cajolled for it is the hegemon and it will have to swallow some ana since it is right now in possesion, because even though the possesion is hurting it it is able to bear it. Pakistan will have to get rid of its fear of being swallowed by India if a confederal kashmiri goverment or joint indo pakistani one is installed, no body wants to add another 140 million impoverished people to india, people is one thing India has in abundance.

AlephNull #400 It is true that Naqshbandi and Echoboom using the word ``kafir``, and I should have noted that as with all rules there are some exceptions. There remain the vast majority of muslims on chowk who do not use that term though, and so my basic point remains valid: you cannot demonize an entire community by picking ont he exceptions. I have never said that the Pakistanis were free of rotten vegetables, and I suggest you start accepting the fact that Indians are not either.
And also note that both these two individuals you mention have heard from me the same way as hate-mongerers from India. (I dont claim that every post I write is perfect, but if someone points out a factual error - even if it amounts to splitting hairs - or logical flaw I dont have a problem acknowledging it as in this case.)

rajasingh: I am not sure I follow your point, but saying the one billion people belong to a particular school of thought does seem to me to be the mother of all generalizations. :-)

Alephnull #400 On the point about `k` kafir being in urdu qaidas, I personally have never seen any urdu qaida like that (and I have seen quite a few from childhood days until recently as part of my involvement in donor-supported schools in pakistan. I assume you have never seen any urdu qaeda either, and this is just another one of those points that are routinely made on chowk by CREIPS (Chowk Registered Experts from India on Pakistan). Of course we all know about the attempt by maulvis to mislead children from poor families who are sent to their saudi-supported schools, and thus it would not be surprising if they did not publish qaedas. However, contrary to what the CREIPs like to believe, there is far more to the pakistan school education system then madrassahs. There are world class set of schools (like Beacon House chain and the UK style elite public schools) for the upper middle class that produce students who achieve SAT results in the 1500s and get admitted to the finest US universities on scholarship. There is a broad network of thousands schools below that for children of lower income and poor families,financed by dedicated pakistanis inside and outside pakistan, many of which are meant for girls. And madrassahs are now on the retreat in any case, their curriculum being subject to government review. I have no doubt that some exceptions will remain where maulvis continue to teach their nonsense - and no doubt CREIPs will continue to use those to spread lies about Pakistan. But they would be fooling only themselves.

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.

And no peep out of any CREIP in all these years on that BJP program.

AlehNull,

``And finally ‘K for Kafir’ is known to occur in Urdu qaidas in Pakistan. ``

K is an Urdu letter? Wow...I`m realy behind the times...

Layman #399
``Ever heard of village panchayats? They may not be religion based, but in villages they do decide on marriage (ruling out marriage in the case of inter-caste love and punishing the couple), infidelity, divorce etc.``

Of course it happens. A Hindu woman has to accept panchayat rulings - but mainly because the state is absent or she is helpless to seek its help in the matter.

Correct me if I wrong, those panchayats are not statutary bodies(state-endorsed) to decide personal law matters unlike in the Muslim case. The Hindu woman in being unable to approach courts and accepting a Panchayat ruling instead , has more rights on the books than she can exercise(a situation which has to be addressed too, of course).

In contrast, in the Muslim woman`s case the state appears to be forcing a curtailment of her rights by implicitly endorsing mosque committees as fit adjudicators under Muslim law- due to consitutional right of minorities to noninterference in religious affairs. (correct me if I am wrong).

There is this case which seems to illustrate it:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040704/women.htm#1

My suggestion is, first standardize the application of Muslim law at district and state level. The next woman should get the same ruling as the last woman in a similar case. Forcing standardization will reduce local arbitrariness and it will force the various Jamaats in a region to sit together and agree on how the law should be applied.

tahmed#392:
Back in my high school exams, we were given quotations from famous plays, poems, etc. and asked to explain with reference to their context. It seems that you didn`t have to go through that tortuous exercise. If you had, you would have seen the context of my conversation with rajsinghi. We were discussing fascism and I was making the point that the term `fascist` may not have the same evil connotation back in the 30s and some otherwise honourable men actually admired Germany`s achievements under Hitler. It was in that context that I had defined myself as a kafir; in the same way that a black man might define himself as a negro without meaning any insult to himself.

``I am afraid that in addition you were also not quite correct when you said that the term does not bother you without adding that basically it is not a pejoritive term in the Quran either.``

I did not and do not see any need for saying that because the term is used in the quran several times and it is not always innoucuous, depending upon the context. Let`s just agree on the definition of the term.

tahmed32 #383

Re ‘kafir’

{{In fact, I cannot recall having heard this term used in any serious manner outside of the historical context (i.e. wrt the pre-islamic people in mecca who later converted to islam anyway - …..). I challenge you to find any chowk post by any Pakistani (even the couple of well known hindu-haters) that uses this term.}}

and #392

{{Thus, in fact not only were you factually wrong in implying that pakistanis (or muslims) have been using this term on chowk (as I pointed out in my previous post to you)}}

You are quite incorrect, as usual. I have seen the term ‘kafir` used hundreds of times on Chowk to describe persons and populations of the present day. For instance, check out the writings of Asif Naqshbandi. He employs the word kafir dozens of times in connection with Qadianis, Ismailis, some Shias, Wahabis, Christians, Hindus, agnostics, atheists, hamidms, etc. etc. He also uses other terms such as ‘najis infidel’. A random example can be found in this post (#51) which is partly addressed to you.

Another good source would be echoboom in his various incarnations. I recall him once quoting Allama Iqbal himself to the effect that a kafir who follows the dictates of Islam can expect to be rewarded with hoors etc. There are some other Pakistani interactors who’ve also used kafir quite a bit. At least one Chowk article was followed by a surreal discussion on whether it was OK to take kafir women as mal-e-ghaneemat. It is also well known that Jinnah was called Kafir-e-Azam. And finally ‘K for Kafir’ is known to occur in Urdu qaidas in Pakistan. So the term is in much wider usage both on Chowk and off it than you would have us believe.

Tahmed32

Post#383

Quote:

`` You are wrong in assuming that all muslims use terms like ``kafir``

Sir, assumption is on your part when you say that I assumed all muslims use terms like kafir. :)

When I said, one billion people belonging to a particular school of thought, I was giving maximum latitude there to make a point that acceptability of that definition is limited to a particular group. That is all.

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

Hindvi

Post #384

`` mein dostmittar sahib ki taraf se aap se maafi mangta hoon. ``

Sir, there is absolutely no need for that. Neither from you nor from Dost Mittar.

I am not emotionally involved in the subject matter so it is not a matter of my sentiments or feelings have hurt in any way.

Reason I raised questions was that when it comes to discussing matters of historic events/personalties, generally people do get emotionally charged so it is important that people use the words more judiciously, and avoid creating questionable impression/s. Saying, it is my opinion is not good enough, specially when it is being questioned, what is the basis of forming a particular opinion (this is a general comment and not aimed at any one in particular).

Though I do thank you for the gesture but as I said at the outset, there is/was no need for that at all.

Dost Mittar

Believe this or not, on the lulling part, what you were trying to say became more clear while watching a debate on Media`s role in India on one of the channels. Guess, I can understand now better what you meant by Marxist Muslim version. It started with JNU and then carried on. However, usage of `lulling into` is still questionable.

By the way, programme very briefly touched on Gudiya episode too, as the anchor of that tv channel, Mr Raghu was one of the guests in this debate. Suffice to say, consensus was, they had done an excellent job in not only highlighting the issue but also in finding the solution too.

FarzanaVersey,

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.