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.

kaalchakra #70 True, but something can yet be salvaged of this discussion through a dialogue on the general nature of secularism in India and the challenges it faces.

re:#69 by GuruJee
``Gujarat saw a massacre of thousands of innocent people of faith yet nobody raised a voice over it.``

A lot of pseudo-secularist raised voices but still Modi was able to win the assembly elections.

``Nobody dared to place any sanctions over the WLD for this wanton act of genocide! ``

You should complain to those people/countries then.

``Had it been any other country or people being massacred of the largest faith on earth, hell would have broken lose!``

Since Gujarat riots, there are more Muslims killed in Shia-Sunni riots in Pakistan than Hindu-Muslim riots in India. Also, more Muslims were killed by militants in Kashmir too.

` Thousands sleep on streets in Mumbai or whatever its latest name is in abjure poverty yet the WLD has the gall to spend billions of dollars on the the state of the art weoponary``

Wasn`t Bhutto ready to make Pakis eat grass in order to fight 1000 year war with India. Inspite of spending billions it is still less compared to what Pak spends on its military (as a % of GDP). Out of those thousands a significant of them are illegal Bangladeshi muslims.

``its hard to keep track of names of cities which keep changing with whatever fundamantalist party in power``

That speaks your knowledge about current affairs. The name for Bombay was changed only once. Mumbai being the original name of the group of Islands. Henceforth, you will be renamed as ``ChellaJee``

``A large segment of population cannot even access clean water!``

But more people are able to access it compared to a decade back. Rome was not built in a day.

Ref nikki7777 #15

[Remember the jacka$$ who said ``when big tree falls, grass gets killed`` or some sh!t like that? Well, he died like a d0g, blasted to bits by the tamils. That`s the way god`s justice works ... sometimes.]

That son of a female dog was blasted to bits by a SRI LANKAN Tamil, not by one of those like you who live/lived in the reality distortion field called Tamil Nadu in India.

Start showing kinship with the Sri Lankan Tamils and let us all hope for a Greater Tamil Nadu in or out of the Indian Union. Veluppillai Pirabakaran would lose no time in getting rid of trash such as Elder Son of Mother Tamil-Doctor Artist Leader the Fund of Compassion, his son Stalin, his grand-nephew Fund of Compassion Jr., Marutthuvar Ayya (``Doctor Master`` -- this guy actually has a name, Ramdas, and has an MBBS unlike Karunanidhi), Doctor Chinna Ayya (Maruthuvar Ayya`s son and hence called ``Little Master``, also armed with an MBBS which, thankfully for the people, he has not put to use) or his greatest champion in Tamil Nadu today who hopes to ride that to victory in the polls -- namely Vaiko. And yes, that mass of rolling flesh known as Jayalaitha would rival the beached whale in Oregon when she is blown to bits by the LTTE.

[................Yup. Never mess with the Tamils.We speak softly but carry a big stick.]

In your dreams, fcuker. Most of you would pour kerosene over your wives over a family disagreement and set them on fire, that is those of you who are strong. The weaker ones pour kerosene on themselves and set themselves on fire. Thank God for such persons not contributing to the gene pool.
[
It is a pity the other tribes in the sub-continent have not emulated the tamils in securing their rights within the indian union.]

``Murasoli Maran and his son Fund of Compassion Jr., extoring a free fiber cable out of Reliance Telecom for their cable TV empire in Tamil Nadu and in return winking at Reliance`s swindling of BSNL out of Rs. 3 billion is NOT securing the rights of any minority tribe, unless the tribe consists solely of the family of Doctor Artist Leader the Fund of Compassion.

Supposedly this article was about anti-Sikh mass murder of 1984. Yet the discussion following it has been hijacked by the raconteurs of Muslim problems in India. The author deliberately the set the stage for this travesty.

What problems of India can these old-fashioned Indian secularists solve? They are blind by choice.

re: Romair # 60

``To me, there is no difference between ethnic and religious riots. A Sindhi killing a Baluchi is as bad as a Muslim killing a Hindu or vice-versa. I have now realized that in India, religious deaths are considered worse than ethnic ones. I do not accept that difference, however. A dead person is a dead person. Ethnic and religious riots are equally bad.``

We should express how a Hindu feels about this statement. Most Hindus would think that your individual sentiments reflect neither Pakistani nor Islamic judgement.

In our view, the basic premise of Pakistani nation is that ethnicity should not be as divisive as religion. We believe that the God of Islam sees no difference between an Arab and a non Arab, but creates huge differences between a Muslim, a person of the book, and any other person who chooses to be neither a Muslim nor a person of any semitic book.

Again, your own individual interpretations are noble, but objective facts do not support the view that the fundamental ideologies of Islam and Pakistan treat ethnicity and religion at par.

#38 by dost-mittar

“And shame on anyone who criticises India`s record on its treatment of minorities without mentioning the unimaginable feat of having the position of its head of state, its executive head, the most powerful politician and the chief of the army staff all belonging to religious minorities.”

I think the best course is to examine the “unimaginable feat” as all (including the RSS Brigade) are pushing it down on everybody’s throat as a singular achievement of Secularism in India.

Before I get into the Nitty-gritty of this claim, I must acknowledge that Amit and DM in their several posts have taken an objective and realist view of the ground situation in India and have already elaborated on the deficiencies in the Indian political system.
My attempt is to show that the above “unimaginable feat” may be short-lived and may be the last hurrah for secularism in India.

Since 1989, when India was already in the grip of several political crises due to failed economic conditions, the RSS and BJP decided to take advantage of the failed economy and political system to launch their campaign to undo the most important pillar of the Indian society-Secularism.
The partition placed an enormous burden on the Indian society to cope with not only the loss of parts of the country but also a substantial Muslims population that presumably actively participated in the dismemberment of India.

I am an admirer of Gandhi Ji and Pundit Nehru for doing what they could to continue with their idealism and pursued policies that were in conformity with Congress ideals and Indian constitution. The Congress also decided to follow the socialist model for economic progress. Socialism was partially successful in Soviet Union due to the dictatorial nature of the state but in Indian democratic polity, it failed miserably. Economic failure also put strains on the secularism as lack of economic opportunity made people suspicious of different competing groups in the country. India ran into several political crises from the early 70s. From emergency to urine drinking by its PM and then assassination of a PM destroyed people confidence in the state and the system. The country that was already in an economic mess also fell into a moral mess when majority decided to punish a loyal and fully contributing sikh minority for the acts of a few.

With fragile coalitions on the top and several regional and internal threats looming large, many state institutions and ideals suffered. Secularism was the clear victim of lost focus, economic and political failure, and petty politicking at the top. In the late 80s, the failure was so complete that a fringe religio-political party RSS/BJP, that had been attacking the secularism from its very inception in different guises, stepped up its attacks on the secularism and claimed that the congress is busy in appeasing Muslims for election gains and ignoring the majority Hindu community. These charges had lots of mileage in the majority community that already was embarrassed by the loss of National pride and was looking for the scapegoats. The RSS/BJP or the Sangh parivar designed several political events like the Rath yatra and demolition of a mosque to appeal to Hindu pride and within six years, the RSS transformed from a small fringe party to the majority party, thus changing the Indian politics for good.

The RSS has never hidden its agenda to do away with Secularism and its six years rule in India, it made sure that communal divide of the Indian society is complete. It ensured that Indian foreign affair and territorial issues should be looked as communal issues and it systematically increased the hatred against the different religions and lower caste.
The attacks on Muslims, Dalits and Christians increased and in almost all cases, the RSS/BJP found ways to place the blame on the minority community. From frantic rhetoric against the conversions to Christianity, to supporting Hindu retaliation against Muslims, to communalizing the Kashmir issue, the RSS has ensured that Communalism is on top of any political program in India.
The RSS is still the second largest party in India, very few seats separate it from the majority, and a small mistake by the current coalition can bring the RSS back in power.
There is a strong possibility that if the RSS comes back in power with enough majority in next round of elections, it will do away with Secularism immediately.
(An article by Dipak Basu on RSS.org is an eye-opener.)
The victory of the current coalition in India is also a result of communal politics as the Congress mobilized Muslims, Dalit and Christians by subtle appeals to their religious sentiments.
The congress by appointing minority persons to the top posts is also attempting to solidify its support with the minority communities thus giving soft support to the communal politics. If the Congress coalition fails, who would be blamed for that failure?

The “unimaginable feat”, may turn out to be a recipe for disaster for secularism/Minorities in the near future.

An RSS connection on Chowk:
See the reference to Bihar connection in both.

Mockery of justice – By Ram Madhav Spokesman, RSS ww.RSS.org

“The report of this so-called commission is theatre enacted for political mileage to the ruling party in the ensuing Bihar elections. That is not even a major issue because it is for the Muslims of that State to decide how long and how many times would they like themselves to be befooled by pseudo-secular lumpens.”

#52 by sadna

“Retired Justice Banerjee was appointed by Railways Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav and his interim report also passes severe strictures against the former Railways Minister Nitish Kumar. Nitish Kumar and Laloo Yadav are both stakeholders in next month`s Bihar`s elections. Bihar has a 24% Muslim electorate.

Romair, since you are going all holier than thou now, who brought up the India Pakistan comparison first in #26?Even the genius urstruly did not mention Pakistan. Why could not a problem with India be discussed without mentioning Pakistan? When you compare, you are bound to have the reasons for that investigated.Why the whining?

re: #61 by Romair

Romair,
You are right in your contention that in Pakistan there are riots based along ethnic lines. There are no reports of riots against Hindus in Pakistan that I have come across. There are varoius reasons for that. Hindus are =<1% of the populaiton, they are even lesser than Christains. They are confined in rural Sindh and mostly work as bonded labour/sweepers. I don`t think there is any reason for them to have a conflict of interest with the muslims. They are not organised politically and it would not even matter much as the populaiton is too small and is dwindling. Just to explain it based on Indian context. Muslims constitute 1-2% and 4-5% populaiton of the indian states of Punjab and Haryana whereas there population in U.P. and Bihar stands at around 20%, in Mumbai should be around 15%. Still I have never heard of riots against them in Punjab and Haryana, whereas there were bloody riots in U.P, BIhar, Mumbai. Religious riots in India are only between Hindus and Muslims. Also, riots in India doesn`t mean hindus are the instigators. Many such riots were instigated and carried out by Muslims. I had to think twicw before going to a Muslim dominated areas in Mumbai even during normal times. Also, in India too there were riots based on ethnic backgrounds. In 60-70`s the Shiv Sainiks rioted against the U.Pites, Gujaratis and the Southerners in Mumbai. Just recently many Biharis were beaten up in Mumbai whereas in Assam the Biharis and the Assamese rioted killing several people. The anti-HIndi agitation in Tamil Nad was against North Indians. Thankfully people have come to their senses and we hope such things don`t repeat.
BTW did you read about a recent news where Pakistani Hindus who came several decades back refused to go back to Pakistan fearing persecution on religious grounds. I think recently some of them have been granted Indian citizenship. I wonder how many Indian Muslims run away to get Pakistani citizenship. Exception: Dawood Ibrahim.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2642209.stm
http://in.news.yahoo.com/041124/139/2i2sv.html
And these links are not from bjp.org :)

re:#61 by Romair

``They make these grand claims about Pakistan. And when one challenges them on it, they have nothign to back it up with. Yet they keep making claims.``

It has been my experience with you that its you who plays ``hit and run``, I have tried to chase you a few times but to no avail.

``There is more to Pakistan than what is shown in Bollywood and in the Indian Times and on www.bjp.org......... ``

This is another example, I had replied to you regarding Bollywood movies/Mass Media, still you keep on dragging it in your posts everytime. That reminds me of a Bollywood movie which is critical of Indian stand on Punjab terrorism, its Maachis. Just FYI.

I hope to get more replies from you before you do the vanishing act.

Romair,

Absolutely agree with you. I haven`t seen as arrogant people as our Eastern Neighbours. They are simply just too proud of themselves... for whatever reason. They have huge problems as shown in this article but they are conveniently forgotten coutesy of the conniving media. Gujarat saw a massacre of thousands of innocent people of faith yet nobody raised a voice over it. Why? Because the so-called ``World`s Largest Democracy`` (W.L.D.) has a carte blanche to even commit massacre! Why wasn`t lot of hue and cry raised over Gujarat as is being raised over Sudan? Nobody dared to place any sanctions over the WLD for this wanton act of genocide! Had it been any other country or people being massacred of the largest faith on earth, hell would have broken lose! Thousands sleep on streets in Mumbai or whatever its latest name is (its hard to keep track of names of cities which keep changing with whatever fundamantalist party in power) in abjure poverty yet the WLD has the gall to spend billions of dollars on the the state of the art weoponary. A large segment of population cannot even access clean water! Yet they never get tired of beating their cheasts of being the ``Greatest Country on Earth`` . One can only bang its head on wall at thier antics!

Romair:
``When I challenged him to prove me wrong. He could not do so. He could only point me to someone saying that Bengalis were half-Hindus and to someone who told him that the Pakistani Army uses Sikh dummies for target-practice.``

You conveniently forgot my reference to the H. Rehman report which pointed out that written orders were given to Pak army soldiers to kill and rape hindus.

I have written several times on the issue of minorities in India without bringing Pakistan into the picture, because I do not think that the comparison is relevant. You said that while Indian govt. sponsors pogroms against religious minorities, Pakistan`s record is squeaky clean in this respect. I do not know about anyone else but, to me, this sounded like comparison. As regards my sources of informattion, I do not live in either India or Pakistan; my sources of information on India are international and Indian media, just as for Pakistan it is international and Pakistani media (and now increasingly chowk). So, if my information is wrong, you know who to blame. As regards the hindus` laisssez faire attitude towards religion, I clarified what I meant, no backtracking [when I backtrack, I`ll say so].

Enuff said. I would like to get back to the topic of this article. I am of the firm opinion that communal riots in India can be easily started but for them to become serious, it cannot happen without active or passive role played by the police, which in turn cannot happen without the state government looking the other way. The proof lies in Bihar under Lalo Yadav. By any criterion, it is the perhaps the worst governed state in India, including lawlessness and crime. Yet, its record on communal front is squeaky clean because Lalo has made it known that he will not tolerate anti-minority activities, ever since he stopped Advani from entering Bihar during his Ayodhya raatra.

This is the problem I have with so many of our Indian posters here. They make these grand claims about Pakistan. And when one challenges them on it, they have nothign to back it up with. Yet they keep making claims. They are bent upon a one-upsmanship contest with Pakistan. I don`t know why..........

It is not beneficial to hide one`s own problems by stating that the other is worse. Specfically if one cannot exactly highlight where the other is worse. He just is worse, seems to the argument........

Dost-mittar commented about lazze-faire reliigon in India, and how it is less religious than Pakistan. When I pointed him to a Pew research report, indicating that India is more religious than Pakistan, he quickly pointed out that he actually did not mean what he had originally stated. Then when I stated that Pakistan`s fault lines for riots are not along religious lines, but ethnic lines, he went bonkers (according to his own admission). When I challenged him to prove me wrong. He could not do so. He could only point me to someone saying that Bengalis were half-Hindus and to someone who told him that the Pakistani Army uses Sikh dummies for target-practice.

Vereesh made bold statements about lack of Christians in Pakistan. When I showed him statistics indicating that there were percentage-wise equal or more Christians in Pakistan, than in India, he stated, that the perception was more important than the fact!! Now he has come up with a new piece of information that the reason that we do not know of govt. sponsored religious pogroms in Pakistan, is because the press does not report them. The press reports everything from honor killings to the number of people killed in Waziristan to the detials of the violence between MQM and Sindhis. But it can hide religious pogroms, all together!!! Amazing...........

There is nothing wrong with highlighting problems in other countries. But at least, base it on fact. Not on a factless contest of one-upmanship. I have gotten tired of asking our Indian colleagues to point me to religous pogroms from the govt. or community based, in Pakistan. I am actually asking this for my own information. They have told me stories of everything else in the book on the history of Pakistan. But they are unwilling to point me to any such pogroms.........Kindly point me to them so I can increase my own knowledge.........And if you cannot, then accept it as a fact that what I am saying is correct........Instead of bending over backwards, trying to fabricate information, through trying to find some sort of heresay justifications about them..........

There is more to Pakistan than what is shown in Bollywood and in the Indian Times and on www.bjp.org.........

``The main point is that the hindu community has been silenced into submission in Pakistan and Bangladesh. ``

You have moved the discussion on riots to a contest between India and Pakistan. Specifically related to Hindus. India/Pakistan contests are useless. As I said I don`t know which country has happier minorities. Neither do you. So kindly stop presenting the fact that you do know. To the best of my knowledge you are not a minority in India, and you are definitely not a minority in Pakistan. Ditto for me. I don`t know either, so I am not going to make any such claim on who is better off.

You will need to talk to the minorities themselves, and find out. Unless you have already done so, your jumping to conclusions is more emotionalism than anything else.

Let us discuss it separately, without useless contests. Let us take Pakistan, first......
My own great-great-great...grand-dad was a Hindu. I don`t know how he ended up being a Muslim. Maybe forced, maybe volunteered. I don`t know.

What we do know are the facts on larger issues. Some you have presented, on the statistics of Hindus in Pakistan. They are almost non-existent. This is true. A fact. I had only met two Hindus in my whole life in Pakistan. And that only briefly. This is a fact.

Their religious places are not looked after, in Pakistan, in areas where they have no population. This is a fact also. This is more due to neglect than a targeted action by the govt. Ironically, the Sikh religious places are looked after extremely well.

The third fact is that the govt. in Pakistan has not targeted Hindus in any govt.-sponsored riots. It has targeted ethnicities, but not religions. This is a fact, also. Neither have there been large scale community based riots against Hindus, or other religious minorities in Pakistan (once again, kindly do not get defensive and turn this into a contest. we are just discussing Pakistan).

These are the facts that we know about Hindus in Pakistan. Let us deduce things from this.

``A Pakistani mentioned at chowk that the Pakistani army practices with bayonets pointed at sikh dummies.``

I went through a lot of this training. I don`t remember anything like this. Could you point me to the resource? Sikhs are actually very popular in Pakistan. They get VIP treatment when they visit. Their religious areas, some which I have visited, are looked after very well.

Just out of curiosity, did anyone, army or otherwise, point a bayonet at you when you visited Pakistan. How were you treated, as a Hindu in Pakistan? How were other Indian visitors treated? You may want to start giving your personal experience more importance than what the media and govt. and film stories about Pakistan that are told.........

dost-mittar #48: ``I do not like to compare the situation of the minorities in India and Pakistan. The two countries have different ethos, different foundations, different ideologies, different constitutions.``

No one was making a comparison. This article is related to minority rights in India. Hence the discussion will be on that subject. There will be comments from all sides on that subject. What I have noticed is that Indians are very sensitive to commentary from Pakistan. So everytime I cirtique something in India, I try to make it a point to critique something in Pakistan, also, so that our Indian colleagues do not get offended.

So when I pointed out that there are religious fault lines for riots in India (whcih is what this article is about), I added that there are ethnic fault lines for riots in Pakistan, just to ensure our Indian colleagues would not, ``go bonkers.`` Apparently, that wasn`t good enough.

To me, there is no difference between ethnic and religious riots. A Sindhi killing a Baluchi is as bad as a Muslim killing a Hindu or vice-versa. I have now realized that in India, religious deaths are considered worse than ethnic ones. I do not accept that difference, however. A dead person is a dead person. Ethnic and religious riots are equally bad.

``But I am not prepared to accept anyone favourably comparing Pakistan`s treatment of its hindus with that of India`s treatment of its Muslims, which is what you were so arrogantly doing.``

I was not doing that. And I have no idea where you got this from. I think, Indians get too defensive. All I said was that the riots in two countries are on different fault lines. Thats it. Which you have not countered either. I don`t know whether the treatment of minorities in India is better than in Pakistan. Frankly speaking, neither do you. Neither of us knows the other country well enough. Much less the minorities of other countries. And neither of us is a minority in the own country.

Indians claim to have a lot of knowledge on Pakistan. Much of it, I have discovered is govt-sponsored and media based falsities. And I have always attempted to correct these biases. As long as I am pointing out facts, there is nothing you can complain about. As an example, you had just made a comment on how lassie-faire and less religious India was in comparison to Pakstan. I pointed you to Pew Research showing Indians are more religious than Pakistan. Vereesh had mentioned the small number of Christians in Pakistan. I pointed him to statistics showing that, percentage wise there may actually be more Christians in Pakistan than in India.

You would have to ask the minorities in each country to get a good idea. If India minorities say they are treated better than they are in Pakistan, then by all mean, that is the case. You should discuss this with PM, Ijaz Gul, ana etc. I accept what they say.

In a sense though, you are the one making the arrogant comment. Since you have automatically assumed that minorities in India are better off. I made no such comaprison. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren`t. You would have to sit them down and compare notes......

If Ijaz_Gul, PM etc. say Christians are better off in India. Who am I to complain. I accept it. And I will accept it from all minorities in Pakistan, including Hindus, Parsis, etc. I do, however, have difficulty accepting it from our Indian colleagues, when they just make blanket statements.......And you should not accept it from Pakistanis either. However, I never said minorities are better of in Pakistan. You are the one who keeps sayign they are better off in India......

I don`t know. But that doesn`t mean one should get emotional and start fuming at the ears........

amit#57

The initial mass migration did not affect Bengal and Sindh (even Baluchistan) as much as it did Panjab and NWFP. I believe that even in 1950 there were quite a few districts in East Pakistan and Sindh which had a Hindu majority, and some may still do. I recall seeing a figure of 20-25% for East Pakistan as late as 1960. I do not know the exact percentage in Sindh but it was quite significant. Personal samples are always highly biased; still I know of two personal sindhi friends (I dont have too many) who had their sisters married to Sindhi hindus in Pakistan. Both of them have since migrated out of Pakistan citing difficult conditions they faced, not from Sindhis but from non-sindhis who have moved to Sindh. I am also aware that there is a steady stream of Hindu visitors from Sindh to Delhi who come as visitors and refuse to go back. Veeresh may know more about this.

Re:dost-mittar#48

To be fair to Pakistan, the pre-partition population of Pakistan areas was around 30 million and 5-6 million were hindus i.e. 20% of population. Statistics show that nearly 5 million people migrated in either direction during 1947. So a reasonable conclusion is that the vast majority of hindus in Pakistan migrated to India around 1947. There is no evidence of any further genocide or mass conversion beyond what took place in 1947.

Having said that, the record of the Pakistani society in general is very poor when it comes to religious tolerance. However, of late, I have heard that at least in Sindh, the local muslims wish the hindus were back, because the hindus were replaced by the Mohajirs with whom the Sindhis do not get along.

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

sadna #52
``Bihar has a 24% Muslim electorate. ``

Correction : Bihar electorate is approx 16% Muslim.

Expert views on the Godhra burning:
http://www.hindu.com/2005/01/18/stories/2005011806461100.htm

which talk of `the smoke before fire` evidence, the `inflammable liquid on the floor` theory and the `burning rag thrown into coach by the mob outside` theory. This is how a report should be prepared to be credible - with thoroughness, not in a half-assed politically-motivated manner.

temporal #19 sadna #27 sadna #37
Since temporal passed a `snide` comment about what I posted and will not back it up, here is my post which he was talking of from Khamosh Pani thread on Dec 20. I was not inferring anything and any `inference` that a reader sees is the result of the reader`s own prejudice.

I said here:
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00004461&
channel=gulberg&start=140&end=149&page=15&chapter=2&order=0#132

``I have also never seen sufficient context being provided for the incident by the press in a thoughtful or meaningful way, except in bits and pieces.

Such as,
-how frequently did trains of activists headed to and from Ayodhya generally pass through.

-On this route as well others, were disturbances at intermediate stations in UP, MP, Raj, Guj the norm. What were major and minor previous incidents previously provoked by those on the trains and off them(including bomb blasts on the Gomti express in previous years in the vicinity of Lucknow).

-Did any journalist go up and down these routes/stations and enquire from the general public or the police about what generally happened when these trains passed through?

-What do locals think was the particular provocation that day in Godhra?

-Why do they think some of the locals decided to go so far as to set fire to a bogey with people inside?

-Or do Godhra residents in general believe that no Godhra resident was involved in the fire and the government`s case against some Godhra residents is false?

-If they do, do they believe this because they have some basis to think it is the honest truth or do they believe this because Gujarat is so communally polarized that people believe only their own version of the truth?

-What are the socio-economic conditions in which the Godhra accused lived? ``


(end quote)

I did not add at the time because I assumed Dilip DSouza already knew(being a journalist and all) the following additional context:

The incident happened on Feb 27th. It is now known that a few days before there were reports in a Hindi newspaper in UP about Ayodhya karsevaks on trains harrassing and beating up Muslim men and women at various stations in UP(some of those attacked had to be hospitalized).

It is also a fact that in Feb 2000, 14 were hurt in a bomb blast on the Delhi-Lucknow Gomti Express. In August 2000, 9 were killed in a bomb blast on the same Sabarmati Express.

On one side, it is clear from the forensic report and eyewitness accounts that after a altercation on the platform at Godhra, that the S-6 coach was stoned heavily from outside. And no one has explained whether and why S-6 in particular was stoned. No one has reconstructed the events with sufficient clarity nor asked Godhra residents/Muslims on the scene why they think the coach was being stoned.

Godhra did not happen in a vacuum. It is the job of journalists to make all possible relevant information available to their readers. Those `activist` journalists like DSouza who genuinely believed that Godhra Muslims were innocent should have uncovered information about mayhem that karsevaks perpetuated at other stations in the period preceding the Godhra train burning. They should have made efforts to report what was Godhra Muslims` version of the incident. The local Muslims deserved their day in the press which I consider they did not get. I made this clear in my post above and other posts on that thread.

--
I will also add that it is not a court which has pronounced that the Godhra train fire was an accident, it is a commission headed by retired Supreme Court judge Banerjee which has done so in an interim report(the commission`s term ends in March).

Retired Justice Banerjee was appointed by Railways Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav and his interim report also passes severe strictures against the former Railways Minister Nitish Kumar. Nitish Kumar and Laloo Yadav are both stakeholders in next month`s Bihar`s elections. Bihar has a 24% Muslim electorate.

Nothing wrong with all this, this does not invalidate the interim report. On the contrary, this is legitimate party democracy at work when the opposition outs the ruling party`s misdeeds and vice versa to win elections.

What I think about the Banerjee interim report from what is reported about it in the press:

1) that there is political bias in the timing of its release

2) that it does not provide positive corroboration for its claim of `accident` and the commission needs to work harder to provide corroboration, given the importance of the matter

3) that however politically motivated, I welcome the report`s condemnation of Western Railways for a lack of sufficient inquiry into the incident. Nitish Kumar was indeed a negligent and politically motivated Railways Minister if he violated the Railways own statutes on such inquiries as the report accuses.

4) the report bases its conclusions based on Gujarat state`s own government forensic lab reports -
a) first that the fire started inside the carriage, prob. by inflammable liquid.
b) second that there was no evidence of petrochemicals, so no inflammable liquids

and on Nanavati commission depositions by surviving S-6 passengers that they did not see anyone climb into the coach and spill any liquid. But the commission has not sat down with other investigation agencies nor tried to rationalise its conclusions with theirs.

5) That the commission has not asked why the coach was being stoned nor reconstructed events preceding the fire in sufficient detail. If it was a cooking fire, there would be evidence, a stove, petrochemical residue, witnesses, something. Let such evidence be looked for and found.

Seems like this board has shifted into ind-pak thing. Before all discussion of the 1984 riots is stopped for the sake of namecalling, I would like to mention that the 1984 riots cannot be compared with any other riots. It was not a spur of the moment riot, but rather a well planned ones who thought that commiting murder would bring them closer to the Gandhis and they would be awarded.

apologies for digressing away from the topic..

mohar11: #25

---

nikki
//...Never mess with the Tamils.We speak softly but carry a big stick.Only nature can have one better over us.....//

Right now, the fat lady is getting better of you. And she is not even a Tamil :) Neither are a bunch of other ``leaders`` you guys swoon over. Not that it matters. But let`s not get too nationalistic here - ok nikki boy???

---

It`s a wrong assumption to say Jayalalitha is not a tamil. She is born in Mysore into a tamil family and other leaders are tamils too..

+++

//...It is a pity the other tribes in the sub-continent have not emulated the tamils in securing their rights within the indian union...//

Bullsh!t. If at all, the ``tribes`` have a little too much rights. Each of the states need some good whacks in the rear to get them into shape. That should start with bihar, of course.

--

don`t know if ``tribes``is the right word... But democratically India is turning from a strong centre based country to a coalition of regional forces.. and that`s the way to go..

for the benefit of Romair`s Knowledge

http://www.webcom.com/hrin/parker/ahmadi.html

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION IN PAKISTAN: THE AHMADI CASE AT THE SUPREME COURT

A Commentary by Karen Parker, J.D.
for International Educational Development
Humanitarian Law Project
A Non-governmental organization at the United Nations

http://www.thepersecution.org/case/case004.html

Violent mob attacks Ahmadiyya Mosque, sets it on fire after destroying it.

SHEKHUPURA - Police officials are standing alert outside a burned worship place of Ahmadis, destroyed by the villagers.Sayyedwala: Sunday August 26, 2001: An Ahmadiyya Mosque in town Sayyedwala, District Sheikhupura, about 100 Km west of Lahore, was attacked and destroyed by a violent mob of Hundreds of Orthodox Muslims. The incident occurred during the evening when Ahmadis were watching the live Satellite transmission of their annual convention held in Germany. The mob surrounded the two houses where Ahmadis gathered and started chanting anti-Ahmadiyya slogans full of abuses. Soon some of them headed toward the Ahmadiyya Mosque, ransacked and destroyed it completely, and set it on fire.

Instead of providing protection to small number of Ahmadis in town, police locked them up in the name of protective custody and did nothing to disperse the mob.

The situation remained tense for two days before returning to so-called normal but Ahmadis of Sayyedwala are still under great stress and fear. It is still unclear if a case has been registered or not against the attackers or the mullahs who instigated the mob.

Excerpts from media about the incident are reproduced below:
BBC Online News - Religious clash in Pakistani town
Daily Dawn - Ahamdis` place of worship set on fire
Daily Dawn - Punjab Constabulary deployed in Syedwala: Attack on Ahmadis
Daily Dawn - Mazdak - Another day, another atrocity by Syed Irfan Husain
Daily Dawn - Features - Appeasing the fanatics by Lahori
Daily Dawn - Letters to the Editor - Syedwala incident: role of the police


http://www.thepersecution.org/hrcp/hrcp03.html

http://www.ichrdd.ca/english/commdoc/publications/demDev/pakistan/pakistanddeng7.html

http://www.hrcp-web.org/Curfew_Gilgit.cfm

Romair#44:

``The point I was making - a factual point, mind you - was that the riots in Pakistan are ethnic and not religious.``

This seems to be true for recent past, despite what Veeresh said. Pakistani media is now free enough that any riot cannot remain hidden, the attempt to possess a temple land in Peshawar was fairly well covered.

But it wasn`t always so. Please read Hamoodur Rehman report which says that even written orders were given to kill and rape the hindus (something that has not been alleged in case of even Gujarat riots) and part of the ethnic hatred against bengalis was that they were considered to be `aadha hindus`. A Pakistani mentioned at chowk that the Pakistani army practices with bayonets pointed at sikh dummies.

The main point is that the hindu community has been silenced into submission in Pakistan and Bangladesh. One babri masjid was demolished in India and the reverberations are felt even today; in retaliation hundreds of hindu temples were destroyed in Pakistan and Bangladesh and the only voice of protest came from some sympathetic muslims. Two years ago, there were some riots against Hindus in Bangladesh. The Hindus protested. How? They ``threatened`` to cancel their pooja celebrations. I am glad that India`s Muslims did not threaten to stop offering Friday prayers in protest against the atrocities committed in Gujarat. This is the kind of difference I am trying to point out - between a vibrant and assertive community and one that has been beaten into submission. It doesn`t behoove people to boast of peace obtained through such submission.

Romair#44:

It was my reply and I did go bonkers. I regret the language used. I am no apologist for India`s shameful record of not protecting her minorities and I made that point quite clear even in that ``bonkered`` post.

I do not like to compare the situation of the minorities in India and Pakistan. The two countries have different ethos, different foundations, different ideologies, different constitutions. India`s treatment of its minorities has to be judged by its own constitution, not by what happens in any other country. Unlike India which claims to be secular, Hindus were never promised a rose garden in Pakistan. But I am not prepared to accept anyone favourably comparing Pakistan`s treatment of its hindus with that of India`s treatment of its Muslims, which is what you were so arrogantly doing. Because, as they say in our language, ``mera munh naa hi khulwao tau achha hai``.

Naa raha baans, na rahi baansuri! There is a small number of jews living in Germany and other East European countries and there is never any riot against them either. The same is the situation of hindus and sikhs in Pakistan.

Hindus in Pakistan are dead, finished, kaput and are steadily reaching that fate in Banglades now. As a community, not as individuals. There still must be over two million of them in Pakistan, there are some even in Panjab, Balochistan and NWFP. But when do you hear from them? Where do you read about their religious celebrations, their religious processions, their protest marches, their politial voices, their leaders complaining about anything in Pakistan, which you do at least from Pakistani christians and even parsis? Where do you hear their bhajans, their kathas, their stories, their characters on radio or television or even letters in the newspapers? Where are Pakistani Shahabudins, Imam Bukharis, Farzana Verseys, Zafar Anjums, Vertexes, Isphanis raising their voices to seek justice for themselves in Pakistan. Whatever little support they get is from the small but tireless band of the likes of Yasser Hamdani, and lately from the much maligned Musharraf. But Hindus themselves are invisible and ``goongay`` (voiceless). There was a rare article on chowk a few years ago about Pakistani Hindus, the title itself said it all [``Hidden Hindus`` by Shandana Minhas:http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00000918&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1]. BTW I do hear a lot of jews and about jews, always positive, on DeutchWelle (sp?) radio. When was the last time you read a Pakistani leader saying anything positive about hindus? Pakistani newspapers - even Pakistanis on chowk - don`t even bother to make a distinction between Indians and Hindus when abusing India or Indians, ignoring that too have their hindus. See the two opeds/news in Urdu posted at the Veeresh Malik thread.

What happened to those Hindus? I have been trying to Google and get at some stats. but have failed to get any. My educated guess is that, after the initial holocaust was over in 1947-48, the percentage of Hindus in Pakistan (east and west combined) was about the same as that of Muslims in India. If Hindus in Pakistan were treated reasonably, there should have been around 40 million of them in Pakistan and Bangladesh now, instead of around 15 million. What happened to others? Did they convert? Did they slowly migrate? Aasmaan kha gaya ya zameen nigal gayee? Has any Pakistani even asked this question?

You have made your reputation on chowk by constantly asking Amnesty International to investigate the human rights abuses in the Indian Kashmir. Why not start with the Kashmir you have? Why not ask them to find out what happened to the Hindus and Sikhs who were in that part of Kashmir? Recently, when there was talk of reestablishing bus service between the two divided parts of Kashmir, I got some idea of what happened. There are some Hindus on the Indian side who are eager to meet their old relatives in Kashmir - it came as no surprise to me that in each case, the relatives left on the Pakistani side are now Muslims. I frequently read about Hindus and Sikhs left in Pakistan who are now Muslims or Christians. I have yet to read a case- although some might exist - where a Muslim who stayed back in India had to convert to another religion.

The proof, my friend, is in the pudding and even if there is any hindu ingredient left in the Pakistani pudding, one cannot taste it. One has to look at the whole picture to be credible, not just point to some warts that you were doing in case of India. While I am mad as hell at the Indians in not protecting its minorities, Muslims in particular, I am glad that there are hundreds of Muslim organizations, thousands of Madrasas, Masjids, and more of them coming up every month, and they are in a position to scream at the top of their 150-million strong voices, rather than be subjugated to being a voiceless minority.

This is what I meant by my praising India in not trying to achieve the peace of the graveyard.

Re:Romair#45

I believe that riots are caused by the INABILITY of intolerant elements to get their way in the system. If the intolerant elements control the system, there is no reason to have riots because you can use the entire government machinery to systematically discriminate and overwhelm the people that you are against. When you cannot get that wish fullfilled, you resort to tactics like instigating riots, so that you can subvert the system and achieve your objectives. For example, before the Nazis had full control of Germany, they indulged in a lot of anti-jewish rioting. Once they got power, the rioting stopped and the concentration camps started.

The reason you see rioting in India is precisely because the intolerant elements, even those in the government, do not have a monopoly in the system. The anti-sikh riots were instigated in 1984, because the system in itself was not against sikhs. The instigators wanted to cause harm to the sikhs and hence they started the riots. The same phenomenon happens between hindus and muslims as well.

So when you do not see any rioting, it does not necessarily mean that your government or system is friendly to minorities. It may be so, but it could also be the other extreme, where there is so much one sided control of the entire system that you do not need to indulge in riots to get what you want. I leave you to judge where Pakistan stands in this context of tolerance towards minorities.

By the way, my comments were more relevant to the interacts of other Pakistanis like urstruly, labyrinth1, nangaparbat etc., who were trying to portray India as an intolerant nation. There is no denying that India has its intolerant elements, but on the whole our system works given the scale of heterogenity in our society.

Romair/45 - if you think the Bangladesh genocides were simply and only ethnicity based then it shows how much you as a representative of Pakistan`s elite are still in denial. Furthermore, the way I understand it, the Pakistani Government does not need to go after the minorities through riots, they simply use the Military and the Air Force.

Your question on the absence of documented records in the current era about riots by and against minorities in Pakistan, whether spontaneous or state sponsored, is best answered by the simple and similar example of Jews in Germany pre-WW-II. There weren`t too many documented riots and worse there either, not till well after the 2nd World War, so is it your contention that all was fine for the Jews then? Remember the fine residents of the towns next to the concentration camos, they weren`t aware either. Same goes for you, too, I would think.

Please, Romair, get real. Your knowledge apparently emanates from a background of believing everything put out by a spineless Pakistani media which would have its readers believe that all is just fine and dandy in not just Baluchistan and NWFP and Sindh for everybody but also in every other Muslim majority habitat in the world, while all the sins of our lifetimes are visited only on the heads of Muslims living as minorities elsewhere.

The ``best of your knowledge`` could do with some improvements. Maybe you too should get on a bus or a train and roam about your own country first. In Pakistan, you treat your own minorities as foreigners, and then give us lectures on ethnicities and religions? Shame on you.

dm/38 :- I think this article was more of a review of a movie than any sort of final statement on a terrible period in time. Yes, riots and genocides and pogroms and worse, these things occur. That is in no uncertain terms, bad, and we hope to fix things, however there are no overnight quickfixes.

Point I would wish you and others to appreciate is that in India we have the freedom to observe and report on them ipso-facto and then post-facto dissect them variously. Regardless of religion. Or ethincity. Please read the names in the credits for AMU carefully.

The other point I have to make is that there is increasing awareness of a simple fact within the larger Muslim community in India, and that is the truth that things are much worse for Muslims in Muslim majority countries. Suggested reading on this subject is ``Globalised Ummah: The Search for a New Ummah``, by Olivier Roy.

Amit #40: ``Hear, Hear!! Very well said. It is amazing that Pakistanis have the audacity to lecture us about tolerance.``

No one is lecturing you on anything. You are being overly defensive. The fault lines of riots in India and Pakistan are different. In Pakistan, it is ethnicity and in India it is religion. In Pakistan, the biggest riots have been Bengalis/West Pakistan (71), Baluchis/Rest of Pakstan 70s. Muhajirs/Pathans 80s, Muhajirs/Sindhis (same time), Pathans/govt (2004). All of these were ethnicity based.

To the best of my knowledge there have been no govt. sponsored or even major community based violent riots between the two major religious communities, i.e. Shias and Sunnis. Nor between the other religious communities.

There have been curtailing of legal rights of other religious communties, through things like Blasphemy laws/Ahmadi laws etc. But the govt. did not go after them through riots.

If you have any information to the contrary, kindly provide it here. If you don`t then kindly accept my information as fact............

dost-mittar #38: ````To the best of my knowledge, Pakistan has never had govt. supported religious riots, which resulted in deaths.....But Pakistan or Pakistanis? Give me a break....The day Pakistan achieves such a feat is the day you will have any right to criticise. Until then, SHUT UP! ?``

This does not look like one of your replies. If it is then I am afraid you are starting to go bonkers.

The point I was making - a factual point, mind you - was that the riots in Pakistan are ethnic and not religious. This is a fact. They are ethnic. If you disagree with this, kindly point to me to govt. support killings along religious lines. Or any massive community based violence along religious lines. You haven`t provided any references. Just yelled and screamed. You should know me better by now, and realize that I am oblivious to yelling and screaming. Too many of your country folk (and my country folk, also) have gone hoarse yelling and screaming at me, with no affect........

And no need to be so defensive. I have no interest in throwing mud on India. I don`t live there. Nor am I in the battle of winning points. If you say that Indian riots are not based on religious fault lines, then that is fine with me. Its India`s problem.

All I was doing was pointing out a simple fact describing the fault lines along which riots take place in both countries. Once again, if you disagree then do provide some references to disprove my point. From 71 till today (and even before) all major violent riots in Pakistan have been along ethnic lines...........

P.S. If this was your reply, then kindly do not use this kind of language with me, again. While I can ignore it from all your other country folk (and most of mine), I will not ignore it from you, since I expect you to know better. And will reply in the same language. So lets make this the last time from your side.....

If it is a Chowk error and not your reply then kindly disregard.......

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

Re:dost-mittar#38

Hear, Hear!! Very well said. It is amazing that Pakistanis have the audacity to lecture us about tolerance. It is like a prostitute preaching about virtue. They have little or no tolerance in their society, even with 97% muslim population. Forget about hindus or sikhs, they cannot even get along with other muslims. First they threw out the Ahmedis out of Islam, calling them non-muslims. Now they are trying to repeat that with the Shias. So basically they are inventing new minorities out of the majority and then discriminating against them!!

On top of it, they have the second dimension of ethnic hatred against each other. Muhajirs, Sindhis, Pathans, Punjabis, Baloch, no one can tolerate the other. So you have a two dimensional matrix of hatred involving ethnicity and religious sectrainism. And they dare to point fingers at us?

I havent seen the movie so cannot comment on that but the thing I dont understand is why the reviewer wants the movie to show ``the city’s upper-class masquerade of appearances``. It seems to be a fashion now to blame on upper-class. Here the author conveniently does not mention hindus but that what he is pointing to. Now even the godhra carnage is blamed on ``Upper class hindus``. That they burned womens and kids to start the riots. This is ridiculous.
Killing of sikhs in 1984 is wrong. It was done by Congress goons. They includes hindus and muslims alike.
Another fashionable thing to do is to related everything to godhra. Even an article in rediff about tsunami is somehow related to godhra and aftermath of godhra.
Killing innocent people is not an internal indian matter. If innocent people are killed then the whole world should condemn it. But I wish there was some kind of equality in condemnation. One needs to condemn godhra (i.e muslims), aftermath of godhra (i.e. hindus and maybe BJP/VHP/RSS), gandhinagar (pakistani and indian muslims), bombay blast (indian muslims), 84 killings of sikhs (congress hindus and muslims) but one has to make sure that innocent people are not condemn and try to apprehend the perpetrators rather than blaming whole community.

#38 by dost-mittar
//....Romair, SHUT UP! ...//

Uhhhh - Romair Mian - you have enraged DM - nobody has managed to do that before. So you must be doing something very very wrong. Now you have to repent - face towards kaba and get on your knees and beat your head on the floor 9 times.

Until then - no chowk access for you.

HP #33
You are confusing Indian context with Indian issue. A claim that muslims got butchered in India because they are part of a larger community that yearns for a pan islamic identity is ridiculous.The answers have to lie within, and be specific to, Gujurat.So much for the Indian context. As for Indian issue, yeah everybody has the right to take this up as an human rights issue. But if you want to ride the rhetoric of how India is deeply communal without backing it up with facts, then you should be prepared for knee jerk reactions of Balochistanis, Bangladeshis etc.

Romair:
``To the best of my knowledge, Pakistan has never had govt. supported religious riots, which resulted in deaths.``

I am in the front row of condemning India`s poor records in protecting religious minorities - whether it is Muslims in several riots, Sikhs in 1984 or Hindus in the Kashmir valley. So, let the US condemn India, let the Amnesty International condemn India, let even OIC condemn India for failing the test.

But Pakistan or Pakistanis? Give me a break? They can complain only after India has reduced its Muslim population to 15 million, which would bring it in line with the proportion of the Hindu-Sikh population of the whole of Pakistan in 1950.

Hats-off to India in not seeking the silence of the graveyard!

And shame on anyone who criticises India`s record on its treatment of minorities without mentioning the unimaginable feat of having the position of its head of state, its executive head, the most powerful politician and the chief of the army staff all belonging to religious minorities. The day Pakistan achieves such a feat is the day you will have any right to criticise. Until then, SHUT UP!

temporal #19
I am waiting for your reply to my post #27.

Excellent review and commentary! [Wonder how they rate these articles, if this gets only two stars!].
I think that what we need are qality films with a mass appeal on this and other similar subjects to wake up our collective conscience.

The 1971 Bangladesh Genocide is an international issue and we should not rest until the state of Pakistan and its army is made to pay for the millions of Hindus and Muslims it slaughtered in the biggest Nazi style genocide the sub continent has ever seen. The genocide in Karachi is a state genocide and it is not an internal affair of Pakistan and we must not rest until those culpable for these genocides are brought to justice. Pakistan and its middle classes and intelligentsia chould be hounded all the way to hell to make them take responsibility for the genocide they commited against millions of Bengalis and others. The Genocidal Republic of Pakistan should be made to pay and should be constantly reminded of the genocide commited in its name, as should its middle class and pompous diaspora, people like temporal and HP.

In the meantime India should support every freedom movement in Pakistan to ensure blood runs in Karachi and everywhere else to leverage the genocidal army of Pakistan into repenting for its genocide in Bangladesh and elsewhere.

#30 by stuka
//... Labyrinth is an MQM guy..//

Well - these days, MQM is against TNT/partition .... or so its Chief-in-exile has declared. But then who knows - I could never understand these so-called ``secular`` pakis - starting right from Jinnah. I mean, if they are secular, they should be getting along well with the secular India - right?? Why are they always wet-dreaming about some big-bang breakup or whatever?

You are right - it will be much easier to buy peace with islamic type pakis then these mofos. Actually if you handover entire pakistan to mullahs to rule, they might even forget Kashmir :)

Gujarat was not an internal Indian issue at all. Communal relations between the different communities in India may be an internal issue but what happened in Gujarat was a crime against humanity.
Everybody in the world has a right to condemn the Gujarat massacre and continue to do that until the mass murdering criminals are brought to justice.
Calling that an internal Indian issue amounts to appeasing the RSS/BJP fanatics behind the murders.

I agree with temporal #19 as regards to the Indian context. In fact, even in India it should be judged according to the actual facts of the case. Religion of course is the main text in riots,but considering that the riots themselves are an exception and not the rule, the subtext of the local factors at play are more important than the main text.

temporal:-19 - Sirji, 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``?

So, keep aside Musims for a moment. Let us use the mathematical term ``one community``.

How can the tragedy/pogrom/genocide with ``one community`` be in an ``Indian context`` alone, when that community itself, in some form of masochist fundamentalism, visits worse tragedies/pogroms/genocides on itself as a matter of daily existence?

So I am not clouding any issue. I am just stating simple street level facts. Here is a community, by normal internal practice it destroys women, it kills off sects it does not agree with, it has a stated objective to kill as many other communities as possible . . . and in the bargain, is not in a minority in countries where 2/3rds of their constituents live.

This community is not known to protest indignities heaped on their own in countries where they have their own majorities. But in some form of wierd media management exercise, they rise en bloc to defend themselves elsewhere, ignoring what happens in their own backyard

Are the sharks in the ocean to be blamed if they are down below waiting to eat every time there seems to be a lemming rush?

Mohar:

why wait - jihad donation boxes are right around the corner :)


The funny thing is that Labyrinth is an MQM guy and they are the ones fighting against Jamaatis whereas they should be donating money to them. Pak ``seculars`` are bigger enemies of India than the Islamic right. We would be able to buy peace with the Islamic right by sacrificing maybe the Valley of Kashmir but we would never be able to buy peace with the ``secular`` MQM. The former are secure in their identity as Muslims. The latter don`t even have that. Their identity is Un-Indians.

Labyrinth:

what happened to Sikhs then Muslims of India and still happening will eventually result in breaking Indian Federation - in years to come - I am personally willing to donate money for that cause -


I quite agree. I am actually collecting funds for just this purpose. If you like I can give you my address and you can send a money order.

temporal #19
``when dilip d`souza interacted here on another board someone asked him if he knew of any other journalistic trails investigating if that ``train`` and its passengers were treated differently at any other stops...the inference is very obvious... ``

I am the person who asked him. The inference is not obvious to me, please explain what you mean above ? (and please, without cryptic wisecracks which I will not understand either)