Last Rites in Kashmir or a New Journey?

re: slan # 204

Good question. It is absurd to think a modern state should be infinitely accommodating.

Re: # 201
`But a modern state should ensure that this loyalty is not incompatible with one`s other loyalties, e.g., to family, community, profession, language, culture, religion and above all, humanity`

Dear DM, what are your views about France banning jewish Skull caps and, Hijab?

romair

Although it does exist, the concept of `invaders` isn`t that potent in Hindu imagination. Even religious people don`t refer to Muslim friends, colleagues, or tailors as invader friends, invader colleagues, or invader darzees :)

It exists only because our liberal historians have been mortified of teaching anything like real history. It is beyond our historians` understanding that the man on the street can always trascend reality, but never myths.

dionysus, slan:

I am aware of the technical distinction people make between worship and emotional attachment. But thanks for pointing it out.

Romair:

I am sorry that I didn`t understand your question. The answer is easy. For me, the loyalty is to a nation state, first and foremost; if for no other reason than that the modern state demands that loyalty and treason is a cognizble offense in most states. But a modern state should ensure that this loyalty is not incompatible with one`s other loyalties, e.g., to family, community, profession, language, culture, religion and above all, humanity.

dionysus:
Thanks for informing me about Rushdie`s book. I am not surprised by what you say. Does he say that the idea of an Indian nation did not exist or the idea of India as a civilizational entity did not exist either? I would agree with him if he says the former but not if he says the latter. I do believe that India was no more a nation state than Europe, before the British brought the whole of the subcontinent under their rule and then only after the development of an english-speaking elite.

Re: # 196

DM,you are misinformed about kashmiri muslims worshipping the Prophets Hair.The Relic is housed in Hazratbal shrine which is very pious to kashmiri muslims,hence the high tensions running during the standoff.The relic is desplayed after prayers on Eide Milad when people pray and you will see many of them crying, which is a display of the emotion attached to any thing related to the Prophet.The Indian troops wouldnt dare do in kashmir what they did in operationblue star.

Dost-mittar #196: ``India and Indian civilization, there is such a huge overlap that it becomes difficult for some people (not me!) to distinguish between them.``

Let`s leave aside South Asia, Indus, Ganga, Pakistan, India etc.

Let`s first decide what criteria one should use to define loyalty, attachment etc. You still haven`t answered this question. Do you think, first and foremost attachment should be based on civilizational basis or religious basis. Be it Europe, Africa, Asia or Antartica.

I have given my clear answer many times. I think it should be based on civilizational aspects. Not on religious aspects. Civilizational aspects, start from geogrphically distinct features. Followed by language, Followed by physical features. Followed by culture. And then comes religion, and only because it shapes culture, to some extent.

So which criteria are you using. Kindly a one word answer, in a clear-cut format, like mine: Civilizational or Religious............

Re: # 196 dost_mittar`` Even Indian Islam is/was very Indian, with Kashmiri Muslims worshipping the Prophet`s hair. ``

They don`t worship it. They revere it as a holy relic, just like European Catholics. Oh wait, does that mean the catholic nations of Europe are part of the high, holy and mystical 3 trillion year old Indian civilization?

``[Churchill`s casual put-down remark doesn`t mean history]``

So because he expresses an opinion that you don`t like his opinion doesn`t matter and it was only a casual put down anyway?? Great logic. LOL! FYI, Churchill was a historian too and he wrote a highly regarded History of the English speaking peoples. Moreover, unlike the others on your little list, Churchill actually lived in India and got to see the place close up.

``I know that Salman Rushdie wrote an essay/book on ``The Idea of India``. I wonder what is his take on it!``

Bad move. You should have read it before alluding to it. Rushdie believes that India didn`t exist as a nation before 1947, a point of view you claim is only held by Pakistanis.

I agree with rahul-capri that one cannot generalize about any community. indeed, a given person can be a member of many communities at the same time - based on nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, professional interests, business interests, political party, social interaction, even internet interaction (i.e. the ``chowkie community``).

It is nevertheless true that the ``religious community`` has historically has played a significant role in real life events in the subcontinent - and the creation of Pakistan is a major example. and communal violence in India and sectarian violence in Pakistan points to the continued dominance of the ``religious community`` vs. other forms of community.

Looked at this way, the answer to my original question starts to become clear I think: the ``religious community`` is important for individuals who have no other strong sense of community (i.e. based on professional interests, social interactions etc.). In other words, the basic cause of hindu animosity to muslims exists among hindus who are basically ``jahil`` (in the sense that they have no major affiliations that cut across other religions). And the same is in case of Pakistan, i.e. sectarian animosity. Cross- check this theory with real life ``data`` and I think it checks out very well. And paper degrees and superficial ``education`` and mannerisms (like new-found US slang, e.g.) are not enough to get rid of this jehaliyaat. And that explains the phenomenon of the jay thakerays of India.

Romair:

Looks like you missed my point, too. These perceptions are shaped by a number of things. No one sat up and decided whether the perceptions will be based on religion or civilization. As for hindus, India and Indian civilization, there is such a huge overlap that it becomes difficult for some people (not me!) to distinguish between them. For instance, very few Indians will deny that muslim architecture, mughlai food, pajamas and ghazals, if not Urdu itself, are part of Indian civilisation. Even Indian Islam is/was very Indian, with Kashmiri Muslims worshipping the Prophet`s hair. Yet, when historians - and I am talking here of world historians like Basham, Duff, Durant and Toynbee [Churchill`s casual put-down remark doesn`t mean history] - talk about Indian civilization, they seem to be talking about ancient Indian history.

It is not for you or me to decide whether Indians should think of Indus civilization as theirs. It`s a question of their identity, whether religious or otherwise. And I am not sure that it is restricted to Hindus. I do not think that Indian Muslim historians have a different viewpoint on this issue. But I am willing to learn if someone knows otherwise. I know that Salman Rushdie wrote an essay/book on ``The Idea of India``. I wonder what is his take on it!

Paaghal Kutha #194

You are talking a millitary occupation, not a legal and moral right to ownership. We all agree that the Indian occupation force can maintain its occupation of the valley indefintely, but that doesn`t confer ownership to India. Only the people of Kashmir can give you that, not an illegal occupying army. Even the founder of your country believed that:


“The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked force should decide the future or the will of the people.”

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

(Statement in Indian Constituent Assembly; 25 November 1947).

#190 by dionysus on June 11, 2005 11:21pm PT


I suppose if hundreds of millions of Indians can believe that ``Kashmir is an integral part of India``


Indian Kashmir sure as heck is...And as you`ve found out over the course of the years, that`s backed by the might of the state and a willingness to do what it takes...wars, insurgencies etc etc...

your thinking Kashmir banega Pakistan doesn`t make it so...you`ll just have to accept that the might of your armed forces won`t extend on the Indian side of the LoC and that no amount of empty sloganeering will change that....

Romair,
Regarding stuka and jang, You would have to ask them. As far as I am concerned, I am speaking from my experiences.About chowk, There are two things that I would like to mention, then I will get back on this topic. Alephnull has talked about grouping of criticizing of Islam with Muslim hatred.I myself have criticised both Islam and Hinduism on this site but have always defended Indian Muslims.
But there is something more absurd going on, there is an automatic grouping of pakistan hatred with muslim hatred. This is not to justify pakistan hatred, but just trying to make a distinction. Take two of the prime specimens of pakistan hatred on this site. Jay and Arjun. I think you will be hard pressed to show muslim hatred in their posts,specifically that which can be applied to Indian Muslims. Arjun, for one, has been critical of right wing Hindus as well. Look around chowk, see what percentage of people speak against muslims in an Indian context. There will be a lot more talking against ``pseudo-seculars`` or ``commies`` or entities like that.
Regarding your invaders query, refer to my post #185. Text books DONT make an issue of
the muslimness of the invaders. I have NEVER heard anyone talk about it and identify it with Indian Muslims. Again, you should ask stuka and jang as well because I can only talk about my experiences.
I will comment on some other aspects later.Specially on jang`s point of ``asking any Hindu`` and kaalchakra`s post.

romair, dost-mittar

I agree with dionysus. But I would argue that any discussion of Hindu civilization versus Hindu religion be deferred until such time as those concepts are understood. Or until both sides can share some basic understanding, which could provide the common framework for such discussions.


rahul #188

The underlying logical machiery seems to be:

Muslims are not the same as/similar to us.

Muslims are worse than us.

Being dissimilar and worse, Muslims cannot be trusted and are dangerous.

Since Muslims are untrustworthy and dangerous, Hindus should not enter into close relationships with them, should not support them, and should not become vulnerable to them.


In driving this logical machine, in addition to some of the factors mentioned in # 191, we must include the very Hindu concepts of chhoot and achhoot, and our traditional readiness to give religious coloring to hierarchical social organization.

A remarkable achievement. A provocative, therefore important, issue is being discussed at some length.

Two corrections have already been made. We are speaking here of a vague unease, distance, and distaste, not hatred. And, the recipient of this distaste is the amorphous group called ``muslims.`` Muslim individuals can receive, and have received enormous appreciation (So Bacha Khan is revered, Akbar is admired, Sufis are followed., and the current President is recognized as a veritable rishi, a person of the highest spiritual/religious kind).

How do we explain this situation?

By understanding that any group`s common ``reality`` is created by its current experiences filtered through ideology and its past experiences filtered through history. Experience, ideology, history, filtering - all are variables, subject to natural change and active manipulation across time and space.

And by recognizing that a group`s stance toward another group arises from the former`s need for reliable access to material and non material goods. Supportive or potentially supportive groups are ranked high. Oppositional or potentially oppositional groups are ranked seen unfavorably. Again, support, material and nonmaterial goods, threat - are all variables, subject to natural change and active manipulation across time and space.

Ultimately, it is PERCEPTION, in the context noted above, that counts. And perception depend the availability of information, interpretation of (received or not-received) information, and measurement against the standard of self image and self interest. All these themselves subject to change and manipulation.

Hindus may interact a lot with individual muslims, but they do not participate in the collective life of Muslims. The greater this collective life appears, the greater is the Hindu/or any other third group`s need for reassurance about Muslims` intentions and essentially similarity with them. Similarity assures us that the other will not act in crazy, non-understandable ways.

In absence of information, in absence of a reliable system of receiving reassurance, and in absence of seen, stated, and accepted similarity, even a small (current or past) hint of (current or future) threat or harm can ignite negative emotions.

Between Hindus and Muslims, all these variables exist in abundance. And what we receive in abundance we are liable to constantly play with.

Romair #187 &182

A couple of great posts, Romair, but don`t expect logic and facts to make any impact on the minds of these brainwashed Indians.

#184 dostmittar

``What you are trying to do is to create a distinction between Indian civilization and Indus civilization. This distinction exists only in the minds of a small fraction of Pakistani elite and is of a very recent vintage.``

I have seen you make this claim about Pakistanis several times now. But Churchill said that ``India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the Equator.`` Winston Churchill was certainly not a Pakistani, elite or plebian, so far as I`m aware. Maybe they taught you something different in Indian history books. I suppose if hundreds of millions of Indians can believe that ``Kashmir is an integral part of India`` they can certainly believe that Winston Churchill was a Pakistani from Chichawatani.