Deconstructing Durga

#67 by harimau:

[The All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam headed by the the only strong personality in all of India, J. Jayalalitha.

What the Indian Army commandos couldn`t do, she got done by her police force: the killing of the bandit Veerappan, thus establishing law and order.]

Although I do think Jayalalitha has some wonderful qualities, it is stretching it a bit to call the AIADMK the only `national` party. Corruption charges against her and her attitude towards the Opposition, her opportunistic alliances speak a different language.

Re. Veerappan, she sure took her own time, and here too both TN and Karnataka are fighting over who really managed the `coup`.

Re. Marxist guerrillas, if they voice legitimate grievances, then the government must talk to them.

PS: Planning a visit to Poes Gardens? :)

Ref FarzanaVersey #61

[PS: This gem from harimau, “In fact, action should be taken NOW against the entire Congress party, CPI(M), DMK, etc. They are all anti-national.” No guesses for which party is ‘national’…]

The All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam headed by the the only strong personality in all of India, J. Jayalalitha.

What the Indian Army commandos couldn`t do, she got done by her police force: the killing of the bandit Veerappan, thus establishing law and order.

The pusillanimous Congress Party is negotiating with Marxist guerrillas calling themselves the People`s War Group in Andhra. Anybody who wants war should have the war taken to his doorstep.

This is my first post here. I have been lurking on this site for a while and see the same arguments being peddled again and again.

I agree with atheist that some of the pre-1947 offensive laws, such as the child adoption laws, should be done away with in India. One of my christian friends went through a lot of trouble adopting because non-hindus are not allowed full adoption - only gaurdianship.

But Urstruly`s (#59) comment is a joke. Considering the fate of even shia-, and ahmedi- muslims in today`s pakistan, and what happened in east pakistan (was it 300,000 or 3 million fellow muslims you guys killed), sikh`s fate in pakistan would have been sealed. Just look at the condition of few christians and hindus and sikhs in pakistan when they are not even a threat to anybody. And you (and Jinnah) want to promise paradise to a large number of sikhs where they would most probably be fully contesting for power if they had joined pakistan. By the way, howcome the gurudwaras in pakistan today are under the overlordship of a Muslim (from ISI to boot).

The solution to a lot of indian problems is more secularism, democracy, education and rationalism, and effective implementation of laws. More federlaism, state rights, and individual rights, equality. People who can`t live alongside and respect their neighbours rights will continue to be so, irrespective of the religion of the neighbour. And nations built on exclusion on whatever basis will turn on themselves sooner or later.

-anil

#65 by atheist

indian confusion regarding personal laws is legendary.

atheist you are right. if you want an instant marriage cert, (as signed by a priest), you have to declare your religion as hindu if its not muslim etc (as per personal law). else, you can always get a court marriage. re priest marriage, its a mere declaration of marrriage which you register at the regtistrar office.

i dont know about adoption laws, but i suspect the source of the problem is a ``hindu`` marriage.

my beef with zatka etc is that there are indeed areas in which practices of various communities merge. the purist will many times make a big deal out of how the other community is diluting my faith. there sensible ways of dealing with minor irritants in a multi-ethnic societies than making a faith-is-in-danger call about everything.

Urstruly

Bengalis deserved a genocide too eh? One million Bengalis raped, spliced, burnt and slaughtered like hogs by Pakistani Islamic psychopaths like you.

I hope the streets of Pakistan run with the blood of Shias and Sunnis bashing each others brains out. They will deserve it for birthing scum like you.

Jang

All I can is say is from my personal experience! I am not expert in Indian personal law. When I got married and wanted to get marriage certificate I had to sign on the papers that declared that I was a Hindu and marriage was performed according to Hindu traditions. When I objected I was told that under Indian personal law Sikhs’ fall under Hindu personal law. When I adopted a son in India again I had to swear that I was Hindu.

Government does not have any rights tell me that I have to swear that I was Hindu or Sikh in order to get my marriage certificate. There should be only one personal law………

As you probably can tell from my alias I do not believe in religion or God. If person wants to eat beef, halal or zhatka it is their personal choice.

Religion only puts shackles on people’s brain so they cannot think for themselves.

Urstruly

Do you really think if Sikh’s had joined Pakistan, it would be better for them. There would a been more bloodshed and both communities would have been at each other throats. It was Jinnah who divided India and Punjab. You are talking about your dharti maaN Punjab and you couldn’t even save its Punjabi language. If Punjab is your Dharit maaN then why do you people hate Punjabi language so much!!!!!!!! It was you who I read in one of the post that you were ashamed to call your self Punjabi.

Sikh’s are much better of being part of India then Pakistan. Only gripe I have with Indian people(including Sikhs) is that too many people go unpunished for their crimes. That is the only reason we see riots after riots in India …………..

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

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

Urstruly (your gtem#59):

Are you really ignorant or you do not believe in facts coming in the way of a ``gem``?

When was Master Tara Singh promised a Panjabistan and how could a Gujarati Jinnah even do that? If you are suggesting that sikhs should have accepted a dhimmi status in an islamic state, you forget that they had been the rulers of Panjab not just a hundred years before then and would have never accepted the status of a second class citizen. The genuine grievances of sikhs notwithstanding, a sikh is now the prime minister of India. As you pointed out on another board, that would be impossible in your islamic state in which you are not responsible to anyone but God (and that too according to what you claim to be the word of God who made different rules for muslims, ahle kitab and kafirs!).

A lot has been written about Jinnah`s offer to Tara Singh. The fact is that there was no written offer of any kind, just some empty promises. Here is an extract from a bio-sketch of Master Tara Singh from a sikh website [http://allaboutsikhs.com/person/mastertarasingh.htm]:

``Plans were made to have Master Tara Singh and Jinnah talk together. A meeting took place in Delhi on April 2, 1946, at the house of Sir Teja Singh Malik, a retired chief engineer who had also been minister in the princely states of Jaipur and Patiala. Besides Master Tara Singh and Jinnah, Maharaja Yadavinder Singh of Patiala, his prime minister, Sardar Hardit Singh Malik who was the host`s brother, and Giani Kartar Singh joined the meeting. Malik Hardit Singh was assigned to presenting the Sikh viewpoint as the principal spokesman. Jinnah`s one overriding concern was to have the Sikhs rescind theiropposition to Pakistan and lend his demand their support instead. He was prodigal of assurances, and told the Sikh leaders that the Sikhs would have a position of honour in the new State. But he refrained from elaborating. Malik Hardit Singh tried to extract from him a more specific enunciation and raised some concrete issues. He said that in Pakistan there would presumably be a parliament, a cabinet, armed services, and so on. He wished Jinnah to say what exactly would be the Sikhs` position in these and other instruments of State. Jinnah dodged by inviting the Sikhs to set forth their demands in writing and by citing the instance of Zaghlul Pasha of Egypt. Zaghlul Pasha, he said, asked the Copts, the Christian minority, to give him their charter of demands. Without having a look at what was written in document, Zaghlul Pasha signed, ``I agree.`` `` That is how I shall treat the Sikhs,`` said Jinnah. Hardit Singh continued his thrusts and said, ``You are being very generous, Mr Jinnah, but how about your succcessors? What is the guarantee that they would implement the assurance given by you?`` ``My friend, in Pakistan my word will be like the word of God. No one dare go back on it,`` replied Jinnah. ``

Since these meetings were private and there was never promised anything on paper, Sikh leaders did not trusted the Promised given to them by Jinnah and were vindicated of their foresight when Pakistan`s army launched an attacked against Bengali Muslims in Bangladesh with mass destruction and gross human rights violations. Considering the current pathetic state of minorities like Hindus and Christians, Sikh leaders like Tara Singh did indeed had a great foresight by not believing in the private concessions of Jinnah.``

``More than sikhs, it is Radcliffe and Congress to blame who unjustly demarkated the Muslim dominating district of Gordaspur to side with India. Muslim League protested, and Congress for the fear that Radcliffe may change its position under Muslim protests ignited the communal riots using sikhs, to attain an irreversible position on the Gordaspur.``

The riots had started long before the Radcliffe award. They started in March 1947 in Rawalpinidi. BTW they were anti-sikh and not anti-hindu in which 59 of Tara Singh`s relatives were killed.

``Today, the sikhs who betrayed their motherland, have been given the sweet gift of three more triforcated limbs of Punjab maaN, by their Hindu friends.``

The Hindu government in Delhi had in fact strongly resisted the demand to further divide Panjab. The Akalis insisted that not dividing Panjab on a linguistic basis was a discrimination against it as other provinces in India had already been divided on that basis, as they indeed were. It was in fact Tara Singh who led the demand for a Panjabi Suba by dividing Panjab in such a way as to create a Pajabi Suba with sikh majority districts. Indira Gandhi conceded to that demand only after an akali (Pheruman Singh?) took a fast unto death to achieve that demand. [That the origin of the demand for a panjabi suba was the refusal of panjabi hindus to learn gurmukhi is a separate issue].

When I read comments like, leaders make mistakes and yet return to power, I wonder why there is a problem to raise such issues. Bush is back. He made mistakes…Why? But people will still indict him, as they must…

The process of learning from history does not mean forgetting the flaws…every event has an impact. And as one can see in many interactions, there are people who have recalled experiences of their own…

Dost-mittarji: Khushwant Singh was, alas, quite a siyasatdar at one time. Frankness is not to be confused with honesty and uprightness. He was one of Sanjay Gandhi’s great supporters. I do believe, though, that his book on the history of Sikhs is regarded with respect.

Amit: I take exception to your post #21…

[How many times have you heard feminists sighing that if only the world was run by women, there would be peace and happiness all over? Well, Indira Gandhi certainly proved to be an absolute counter-example to that. She was a cunning, manipulative, vicious, spiteful woman who loved to play games with everyone in her life. Most women tend to play games with the men in their personal life. Indira decided to extend these practices to her profession and indulge in it at the national level in the administration of the country.]

An exception does not diminish the rule. The adjectives you have used for her (and they are not wrong) would apply to most men in power, too. What exactly do you mean by saying that most women play games with men in their personal lives? This is such an old stereotype.

Yes, the question about feministic beliefs does come into the picture. Most women in such positions are so surrounded by men that they try to mimic them or they cop-out. Remember IG was called “goongi gudiya” at one point in time…

As has been pointed out, she was a complex person and I have touched upon only a few aspects of those complexities.

Thank you all for your comments and adding your perspectives.

Regards,
F

PS: This gem from harimau, “In fact, action should be taken NOW against the entire Congress party, CPI(M), DMK, etc. They are all anti-national.” No guesses for which party is ‘national’…

Nonsense # 58 is not mine.

Gems in #59 are mine.

Sikhs have no one else but themselves to blame. Or they should blame Master Tara Singh whose twelveth hour decision to play in the hands of Hindu extremists cost millions their lives and other damages as well and resulted in perpetual hostility between two nations that haunt them even today. Lets be honest here. More than sikhs, it is Radcliffe and Congress to blame who unjustly demarkated the Muslim dominating district of Gordaspur to side with India. Muslim League protested, and Congress for the fear that Radcliffe may change its position under Muslim protests ignited the communal riots using sikhs, to attain an irreversible position on the Gordaspur. They succeeded. But at what cost? To this day humanity has bloody scars on its face.

Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, my leader in his wisdom and foresight, made an offer to Master Tara Singh to join with Pakistan, which is an undeniable historical fact. Had sikhs accepted Quaids, advise the Punjab would have never divided. But sikhs, because of their inherent anti-Muslim bigotary, hatered, greed to occupy Muslim property and more than that their mere stupidity divided our dharti maaN Punjab into two. Nature has its own way of getting even with the injustice that man does to himself and others. Today, the sikhs who betrayed their motherland, have been given the sweet gift of three more triforcated limbs of Punjab maaN, by their Hindu friends. Today the sikh is broken, demoralized and neutered and lost any hope or will to fight for what is rightfully theirs. Even Haatu Kashmiris have proven to be tougher than Sikhs; with a sacrifice of 100,000 lives and countless rapes by their Hindu oppressors they stand tall and still prove to be force to be reckoned with for the baniya. Sikhs on the other hand have no hope, no land to call their own. Sikhs are the renegades who betrayed their own dharti maaN Punjab and they deserved 1984.

Tahmed:

A is irrelevant. Better trade relations with any country means that wealth will be increased for the business community. Let us look at overall benefits of trade with India rather then saying who wins individually.

B. In fact Pakistan had to concede much less during Lahore compared to Islamabad. Unlike Lahore, Islamabad declaration binds Pakistan to give up on its only leverage in Kashmir: Tthe Jehadi forces. In both cases, India agreed to include talks on the dispute over Kashmir. In either case, India has not said Kashmir is disputed territory. It has accepted that a dispute exists over Kashmir. There is a difference. For us to say Kashmir is disputed means weakening our own position up front. Rather, by saying a dispute exists, we mantain our position while acknowledging that Pakistan does not agree with us hence we will talk about it.

I will google the Lahore declaration and see if Ii can find more details.

C. Stronger Consensus: But that is my point. Why a consensus exists over an agreement less less beneficial to Pakistan whereas it did not exist over one that was?? Why?

#54 by atheist
i dont get your !s. are you claiming that sikhs have to decalre themselves to be hindus since according to indian personal laws, all non (muslims, christians and parsees) can choose hindu personal law or the secular law? i dont believe that this is what the sikhs want, they want hindus to stop assuming that they are hindus..the gripe as i understand is somewhat emotional and not legal.

one thing that distinguished hindus from muslims is the beef-eating. also, hindus want zhatka mutton while muslims want halal. where do sikhs stand on this (discarding those in the west)?

while the majority community should make no overt attempts of trying to overwhelm sikh identity (which i dont believe to be the case), we need to understand that its a big country with a lot of minorities. a lot of us are kind of suspicious of minoritism getting hijacked by voilent fringes.

Ref stuka #44

[.... no one whose primary loyalty is to India the country (not to be confused with Indira) would deny the need for action against Bhindranwale and his followers.]

By the same token, action then should have been taken against Indira Gandhi and the entire Congress party.

In fact, action should be taken NOW against the entire Congress party, CPI(M), DMK, etc. They are all anti-national.

Ref stuka on #50

[People south of the Vindhyas supported Rajiv Gandhi as well in 1984 and they were the ones who voted more in droves in 1989 for Congress.]

It took someone from south of the Vindhyas to send Rajiv to kingdom come.