Documenting the Pain of 1984

Another Indian ``justice`` has spoken. Congress was not to be blamed for anti Sikh riots - ``Justice`` Nanavati.

temporal/87 - on the plebiscite, agreed, talks are ongoing as part of a larger picture, so that is that. We can go on about Jinnah Nehru, but truth is that the world is different place today and we have all moved on.

(On a lighter note, I have no personal objection to plebiscite or whatever if it will help me become a feudal landlord in absentia over my ancestral lands in Jhung . . .)

Here are some facts which you may wish to comment on?

1) Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, wrt J&K, is based on this pledge and provides in clause (3) for its own extinction (``cease to be operative``) and thereby severance of the link between the State and the Union if the plebiscite`s verdict went against India. That was the only way Kashmir could have constitutionally seceded from India. Plebiscite was official Indian policy from 1947 to 1954. It was part of the process of the partition of the subcontinent in 1947. remember, India asked for the plebiscite, not Pakistan.

2) Subsequently, Pakistan dis-entitled itself in the same UN by the war in 1965. That much is also record and fact, right?

3) Manmohan Singh said on 21st December`04 to the Indian Parliament that:- ````While we are willing to look at various options, we would not agree to any redrawing of boundaries or another partition.`` ``

4) President Musharaf said on 7th December`04:- ``15 different options on Kashmir can be discussed and Pakistan is ready to open more land routes in Kashmir````

I would think the consensus in both countries is that our full potentials as Nations are not being realised.

I agree that the Ummah is a dead horse, though the riders of the dead horse would like to thing otherwise and it is they who keep flogging it.

These fine robed gentlemen are visible in the distance over the Western horizon as the sun sets almost at the same time in Karachi and Mumbai, I may add.

ps: I think Delhi was colder than much of Canada this week.

rgds/vm

veeru:

# 19:...India is not some piece of real-estate unconnected to the rest of the planet, nor are actions by people living there insulated, right? So what, in this day and age, is an ``Indian context``?

...you cannot have your cake and eat it too...e/g...when others urge a plebiscite you then cannot invoke the `this is our internal affair` argument;)

...as for your assertions on one community...while i do subscribe to mcluhanesque concepts of the global village i do not believe in the hoax of ummah invoked here and in the media everywhere...it is a flogging a dead horse and not knowing that the horse is dead;)...

rgds

t

sadhna:

in # 52 you write...Since temporal passed a `snide` comment about what I posted and will not back it up...

...this (#52) in my book qualifies as inference seeing `snide` comments and `not backing it up`...

i do apologise for not being on chowk 24/7 to respond to posts...as i read them now i acknowledge your posts # 27, 37 and 52....as for my original `inference` you have cleared it up and i thank you for it...

re # 7...you articulate well, are well read and opinionated, why don`t you write an article for chowk?

lve

t

Re: # 79
plats8 has put it well. As I already said, problem in secularism is not of ommission but of commission. Secularism is already built in to the constitution.There is no need for affirmative action type of secularism and thats what I meant by ``no manouevring space``. It has happened with BJP and Shiv Sena too. The sloganeering about Sonia`s foreign origin did not get them anywhere. Recently in Maharashtra`s assembly elections Shiv Sena lost when a strong election plank was ethnicity based politics. Point is, such type of mobilizing is done by all parties, but their effects to the overall result is never decisive.

Re: # 81

Why would any Muslim in Pakistan identify oneself as a Muslim? It`s redundant information.

Re: # 79

Electoral dynamics in India is hideously complicated, and it simply cannot be cast
on secular/non-secular lines. It is unrealistic to expect that a concept as delicate as
secularism will not be threatened in a third world country with a large emotional
and illiterate electorate. The RSS realised that they can make serious gains by
creating a politics of religious identity, and they did succeed for some amount of time.
But by no means do they have uncontested space. There are a zillion other parties
with their own brand of identity politics - caste, language, ethnicity, hair color and
what not.....and all of these parties have their voter base. At the end of the day,
people end up voting on ``bijli, sadak, paani`` type issues.

Re:HP#81

If that is the case, how do you explain the overt religiousness expressed by successive Pakistani governments since the time of Zia? Is it not representative of your society? Pakistan is a religious state. The official name of Pakistan is Islamic republic of Pakistan. Pakistani passport forms require muslims to sign on their belief in the prophet and that they are not ahmedi. I understand that lot of other government forms also require the same. In addition, there is a controversy about the column on religion on Pakistani passports that I am sure you are aware of. Your media is saturated with religious articles. You have blasphemy laws that are used with a very open interpretation. Same with all the hudood stuff.

Look, I have nothing against religion per se. I feel that Pakistan makes a lot of show-sha about religion, sort of like shouting from the rooftops. However, even if Pakistanis do have a secular bone, the fact remains that Pakistan is a religious state. Even if it was all Zia`s fault, Pakistan has kept it going and has shown no signs of any rollback. In India, religion is more of a personal matter. While people care about religion, it is not a national obsession. That is why India has remained secular and will continue to do so, no matter if even 100 Advanis show up.

#80 by amit

“If you ask a person in Pakistan, if they are muslims first or Pakistani first, guess what will be their answer? Their primary identity is religion and then their nationality, ethnicity etc.”

That is a serious misconception you have about Pakistan. If you ask somebody on the street they will identify themselves as Sindhi, Punjabi, Baloch, or Pakhtoon. Or they will tell you they are from Karachi or Lahore. I spent considerable time my life in Pakistan and did not hear one person tell me that he is a Muslim or Hindu. When I asked for their ethnic identity or even asked them a simple question as to where they are from they would respond with their geographical locations. Even outside of Pakistan, people respond by saying that they are from Pakistan not they are Muslim.

What you are saying is contrary to human nature.
We have similar types of nutcases like you have in India. People, who would glorify religion for political purpose, may say whatever they want but the reality is that people associate themselves with geographical area, culture and their ethnicity. Religion is neither a geographical area nor it determines anybody’s ethnicity. It is just one aspect of cultural affinity not the whole.

Re:HP#79

The difference is that Islam by its nature is a structured religion and hence muslims have an underlying bond of unity which is religion. If you ask a person in Pakistan, if they are muslims first or Pakistani first, guess what will be their answer? Their primary identity is religion and then their nationality, ethnicity etc.

Hinduism by its nature is unstructured. Hence hindus do not have a strong collective religious identity. If you pose the same question to a hindu in India, their answer will be they are Indians first, ethnicity (Punjabi/Tamil etc) second, caste third and fourth religion. So religion is far removed from their identity.

That is why the strongest guarantee of secularism in India is the nature and mindset of hindus. Of course, there are exceptions, the RSS types that you refer to. But by and large, hindus do not follow that mindset, otherwise by now India would have been a hindu state. It does not matter who comes to power, the secular fabric of India will never change.

#76 by amit
“The biggest mistake Pakistanis make in analyzing India, is their concept of a large, monolithic hindu majority in India, somewhat as a mirror image to muslims in Pakistan. Hindus are not a homogeneous people, never have, never will be. They are completely fragmented based on caste, region, language etc. They have never been united on the basis of religion. That is the reason you have 400 million muslims in the subcontinent today.”

I am kind of surprised at this line of argument. Why do you think Muslims in Pakistan are a homogeneous people? On the other board, we were already discussing Baloch demands, Sindhi demands and Punjabi issue. Which of that ethnic group used Muslim entity in their political demands. Balochis are fighting for Baloch rights and Sindhis are fighting for Sindhi political rights and they have grievances against Punjabis and the Army. Where did you see word Muslim in there?
If Hindus in India are fragmented on the caste, region and languages, Muslims in Pakistan are divided on the similar patterns.
Like the RSS and the Sangah Parivar in India, Pakistan too has religious fanatics that are trying to push Pakistan towards fundamentalism.
The issue that I raised was Indian secularism is in grave danger of being sidestepped by the political parties like The RSS and its affiliate groups. They have already been in power for six years and there is strong likelihood that they will be back in power in future. All BJP leaders have shown their commitment and affiliation with the RSS, which has a clearly defined goal of doing away with Secularism. The RSS has demonstrated that it is capable of undermining minorities’ rights and it certainly promotes communalism.

#74 by rahul_Capri


“So, the bottom line, every party is equally secular or pseudo secular now, but the election would not be decided on the basis of this. The Congress knows that it cannot be overtly ``pseudo secular`` now.It does not have that much space to manoeuver.”

Rahul,

Aren’t you implying that pretty much all parties have no commitment with secularism and would rather soft peddle their stand on secularism than risk being marginalized by the non-secular parties? How does this jive with the claim that elections in India are not contested on communal basis and when even Congress-the party that championed secularism in India-“does not have space to maneuver” on secularism. What chances secularism has in India to survive?
The last Indian election were clearly on communal lines when Advani was taking out Rath Yatra all over India and Congress was attempting to court Muslims by scaring them of RSS designs on religious minorities.

#75 by sadna

“For the record, I have absolutely no idea why Indians discuss Indian affairs on a Pakistani website.”

Excellent! now Deputy RSS spokesperson would only like Indians to discuss Pakistani issues because this is a Pakistani site.
But who gave Indians the right o discuss Pakistani issues?
Oh! I forgot Indians are “genetically superior” and they can discuss anything under the sun but India is off limit to everyone.
This is a typical rightwing mindset. Indians are always right Pakistanis are always wrong.

“The Chief Election Commissioner of India has warned Laloo Yadav against misusing the Banerjee Godhra report in his campaigning.”

Exactly what I have been saying all along everything in Indian politics is used for gains in different communal groups. Indian secularism has a new word for it now and it resonates with communalism.

sadna
//...I have absolutely no idea why Indians discuss Indian affairs on a Pakistani website..//

Technically, chowk is NOT a paki website. Even if it is - so what? At the least, it gives a different perspective on Indian ``affairs`` here.

Actually - it is has been quite fun seeing pakis squirm and wiggle while their long-cherished myths were shattered one after another :) If you look back years past, pakis have come a long way in their journey towards sanity and reality. Discussion of Indian affairs, among other things, has imparted invaluable contribution towards re-education of the brain-washed pakis.

Re:HP#64

The biggest mistake Pakistanis make in analyzing India, is their concept of a large, monolithic hindu majority in India, somewhat as a mirror image to muslims in Pakistan. Hindus are not a homogeneous people, never have, never will be. They are completely fragmented based on caste, region, language etc. They have never been united on the basis of religion. That is the reason you have 400 million muslims in the subcontinent today.

In the political context, it was the Congress Party that got support from all corners of India initially, which included hindus from all parts of India. It did not mean that Congress was a communal party or that hindus were all united on the basis of religion in supporting Congress. They supported the party that voiced their needs for independence from the Brits and later provided decent governance for the first few decades. The muslim community including Jinnah made the mistake of interpreting the Congress as a manifestation of hindu unity.

In the later years, once the Congress failed to deliver, especially in the economy, people started looking at alternatives. The BJP was initially attractive because of its market orientation, support for small business and nationalist ideology. They certainly exploited the mandir issue to get to power. However, people thought that once in power, it will move to the center and provide good governance. It did pretty well on the macro economy. But when it kept on bringing up communal issues and failed to deliver at a micro level, people showed it the door across India. If hindus were all united by religion, they would have never voted out the BJP, especially with Vajpayee as its leader and a strong macro economy.

The reality is that people in India vote for non-communal issues like their pocket book, security, law and order etc. Whoever provides good governance, good economic results and protects them gets the votes. If the Congress party delivers results, it will survive in power, otherwise it will lose as well. That does not mean that people will suddenly turn on sikhs and muslims and blame them for the Congress`s poor performance. It is your lack of understanding of Indian ethos, our values and thought processes, that makes you believe otherwise. Religion in India is a personal matter. People are not collectively obsessed with it unlike Pakistan.

The Chief Election Commissioner of India has warned Laloo Yadav against misusing the Banerjee Godhra report in his campaigning. Mayawati has said the Banerjee Godhra report violates the election code of conduct. Saeed Naqvi Indian Express columnist said that there is an element of intra-Bihar rivalry in the appointment of the Banerjee commission. Are these people members of the RSS?


For the record, I have absolutely no idea why Indians discuss Indian affairs on a Pakistani website.

Pakistanis

1) Don`t in general care what happens to Indian Muslims, given what policies of Pakistan they go to great extent(including using obscenities) to cover up and defend, policies which adversely impact Hindu-Muslim relations in India.

2)Operate under the implicit assumption that Muslims must be held to be doodh ka dhula by nonMuslims. That Indian nonMuslims have no right as Indian citizens to do any questioning even on issues which impact these Indian nonMuslims. That those who do are bigots for the slightest implication that just like other human beings Muslims too might not be 100% white driven snow.

Pakistanis fail to acknowledge those who do not accept that all Muslims are infallible in every situation are not necessarily anti-Muslim. That it is perfectly justifiable to believe Muslims to be innocent and nonMuslims to be guilty in any given situation but it is totally infeasible to insist that all Muslims are infallible in every situation(as Pakistanis do). Quite as unworkable as insisting that all Hindus are infallible in every situation.

3) Like American decisionmakers, Pakistanis have no concept of consequences of actions and policies. Just like American decisionmakers assert that whatever they choose to do arises out of their superior moral right over others and any adverse consequences are only signs of other people`s evilness( for example rise of Islamic radicalism after the Afghan jihad is a sign of pure evil unlike America`s own Afghan jihad policy which was morally justified), similarly Pakistanis think whatever Muslims do arises out of their superior moral right over others/God`s will and any adverse consequences only prove how evil their opponents are.


4)That Pakistanis are free to create what mess they want in their own country with such a value system but it is impossible for India to successfully and safely run a pluralistic society under the Pakistani assumption of inherent and eternal infallibility of all Muslims.

As I said, I don`t understand why Indians discuss Indian affairs on a Pakistani website.

HP #65 click here
There are enough other reports as well which say what sadna and ram madhav are saying.
Feel free to chase your own demons, though.
HP #64 here is the response i posted on UP.
HP, the BJP government did not lose because Congress projected itself as a more secular party. It lost because of anti-incumbency. The heartening thing about this election was not that a more secular party won, but that it was decided on other factors. The problem of secularism in India is not that of omission, but of commission.Too many parties tend to wear it on their sleeve.But that sort of mobilizing and counter mobilizing is necessary so that one party does not run away with the whole political pie. So, the bottom line, every party is equally secular or pseudo secular now, but the election would not be decided on the basis of this.The Congress knows that it cannot be overtly ``pseudo secular`` now.It does not have that much space to manoeuver.This is the benefit of having a worthy opposition.
One more thing about the BJP, actually the BJP(or RSS as you care to call it) were the one which brought coalition politics to the fore of Indian polity.Now both congress and NDA are a coalition of strong regional parties, so none of them can run their own agenda through that easily.