Last Rites in Kashmir or a New Journey?

rahul_capri #183: ``Talking about sentiments of all Hindus is not meaningless,in fact it does serve a useful purpose, but it will be more fruitful if we can talk not in terms of unprovable generalizations but in terms of concrete manifestations.``

This is a good point. And a very valid one..........

My queries are based on the various comments that I have started seeing on this site, regarding a dislike in India, for Islam and Muslims. These comments are being raised by Indians and Hindus themsevles. And in many, if not most cases, people seem to be agreeing that it does exist, in general. Stuka and jang seems to have both acknowledged it. If one includes some of the very anti-Muslim remarks on this site, one would have to agree, that, at least, on this site, the general consensus is that there is an inherent dislike of Islam in India.

Some comments are below, which are actually part of a thought-provoking discussion, and were not stated as part of hate-speech:

``OTOH, the perception of Islam is based on it being the religion of the mediavel establishment. Hence it is associated with force and injustice, rightly or wrongly.........ask ANY hindu, (actually a non-muslim is more appropriate) village, city, north, south if he thinks high of islam or muslims. The sentiment is negative, without any vhp or rss``

Again, I am only basing this on comments and acknowledgements from our Indian colleagues. I have never been to India, so I cannot say personally..........

But I am interested in finding out the reasons behind this. My only conclusion would be due to the invasions by various Muslims. But are the invaders hated, because they were invaders. Or are they hated, because they were specifically, ``Muslim`` invaders?

Also, there seems to be a lot of importance given to the conversions of Hindus to Islam. However, I have noticed that the families that were converted don`t seem to have an issue with it. For example, my family (one whole side of it) converted (perhaps forcefully) from Hinduism to Islam. I am OK with it. And as long as I am OK with it, so should others, since it is my personal matter. Yet I find a lot of people concerned about the fact that my family and other similar families were converted............

Now finally coming to the original dim-view statement by jang. Let me attempt a list of the possible manifestations of this dim-view.
1. Hindus would not marry muslims.
2. Hindus would not eat at muslims places.
3.Hindus would not rent houses to muslims. (This was actually tested and verified by a journalist in Bombay)
4. Hindus think muslims are more loyal to Pakistan than India.
5. Hindus think Muslims are procreating wildly to shift the population balance in their favour.

1 and 2 are from my grandfathers generation and to a lesser degree to my fathers generation. 4 and 5 apply more to my generation. I am not qualifying with many,some or vice versa here, though they may be applicable.
I would like people,specially Indian Muslims, to add to this list. Then we can go over the causes.
Also, I have excluded riots because as I have posted on other boards, riots are due to local factors and have affected approximately 1 or 2 % of the population. So they are not helpful when trying to surmise any trends, IMO.
One more important thing is that Upper cast Hindus would be more hawkish to lower class hindus regarding 1,2 and 3 than Muslims.

Dost-mittar #184: You may have missed the point I was trying to make..........

One has to set a standard on dealing with invasions, loyalties, associations, etc. Is it on the basis of civilizations or on the basis of religion? Take your pick. It doesn`t matter how fuzzy the subject maybe, one has to, at least, have a principle. And then decide the, ``fuzziness`` from there. One cannot switch to religion when one group is involved, and switch to civilizations when another group is involved.

So which one is it? In my case it is clear. I believe in civilizations. Not just Indus civilization. But various civilizations, that were and are spread across South Asia, immaterial of the religion they follow.....Even within the Indus, you can divide it up into Punjabi, Baluchi, Sindhi etc., if you want..........

``Indians, especially Hindus identify themselves as much with the Indus civilization, which is now in Pakistan as they do with the areas which are now in India.``

Based on what? What is the common factor? What does a guy in Bihar have in common with a guy in Taxila, (or with a guy from Tamil Nadu). from a civilizational point of view. Other than the fact that the British united them into one country, where they all know English, like tea and play cricket. They could have just as easily united Amritsar with the Baghdad side of their empire.

The people from these civilizaitons look different. They speak different languages. They eat different. They dress different. I doubt they ever mated much, since they were so far apart. They were rarely ever in the same country. The only thing I can see common is the majority relgion.

``And although this is a trivial observation, it bears repeating that although the concept of Hindu itself did not exist before invasions from the North West, the concept of an India/Aryavrat/Bharat did exist, however vaguely. This concept perhaps solidified during the British period. So, internal battles were considered as civil wars, such as the legend of Mahabharat, but the external invasions were not viewed in the same light.``

Once again, why? What you are describing is the concept of an, ``Ummah.`` A majority Hindu Ummah, in which all internal conflicts are civil wars, since they are amongst individuals of the same religion. However, if a different religion is involved, they become invasions. So, by that logic, if Ghauri and Ghaznavi were Hindus, their invasion of Punjab would have been a civil war. If Babar was a Hindu, so would his. The only reason they beocome invaders is becuase they were Muslims !!

There is nothing wrong with that view (even though I don`t agree with it). But then why is it wrong for others to use that view. What`s wrong with Muslims then associating themsevles with a Muslim Ummah (Streching from Morroco to Indonesia) where all internal wars are civil wars. And all non-Muslim involvement is an invasion.........And why is it then wrong for a Muslim in Taxila or Lucknow or Banglore to associate himself, first, with Mecca and Medina, before his local land?

In fact, such a line of thinking doesn`t really leave much choice for Muslims, of South Asia, to associate with the local civilizations. Since, in the end, they do become the second generation of invaders..............

``BTW for any reference to an anti-muslim statement in any mainstream Indian media, one can point to at least five treacherous hindu-bania type statements in even liberal English newspapers from Pakistan, such as Dawn].``

I completely disagree with this. Perhaps in the Urdu media, but definitely not in the English media. If that were the case, Pakistanis would hate Nehru, Gandhi etc. with the same passion as Indians hate Jinnah. And would never welcome Indians into their country, as guests, like they always do. But let`s leave this aside, and agree to disagree, since my point is to discuss the concept of civilizations, and not get into an India/Pakistan contest..........

Further to #184,
wrt the modern american perception of Islam as a fundoo and militant religion, there may be some effect in places where there arent enough muslims. I wouldnt be able to comment on that since there are enough Muslims where I come from, and I do not have to borrow any perceptions regarding Islam from somewhere else. I do not relate one foot beards with jihadis . And I do not really think 9 11 has had much of an effect in India.
The reason why my obervations can be different from others is that I have always been in interaction with muslims.That is not specific to me or my family but was generally true for most of the Hindus I knew and interacted with, and same can be said about the attitudes I described earlier.
Perhaps it is fair to say that the attitude towards Islam would vary across India, and in places it would be affected by the current world view of Islam.

Further to #183,
What do Hindus think of the contribution of Islam?
I would seriously doubt if any one of the Hindus I know would be able to comment on the contribution of Hinduism, or the general principles of Hinduism , so expecting them to comment or recognize Islam is a far cry. The struture of Hinduism is such that the ethical framework works at a sub conscious level, through myths and fables, with the principle that self discipline is better than forced discipline.Consciously, it is a set of rituals. What I want to emphasise is that not knowing about the contribution of Islam is not saying much.
I want to make one point here, academically I have read in my 10 th class social science book abt Buddhism ,Jainism and Sikhism and how they came up as reformist movements .But nothing about Hinduism or Islam. The reason for this maybe that it was not as much a study of religion but the study of Indian civilization.Invaders have been mentioned but nowhere have they been termed as Muslim invaders,similarly as nowhere the British have been termed as Christian invaders. I could be wrong on this, since I was not a very good student, but that is what that I can remember.
As an aside, I believe that theocratic studies shall be part of the curricullum.

Romair:

There are no clear-cut answers to your questions, and I doubt that there ever will be. First of all, these questions probably concern only a miniscule population of India, Pakistan, Hindus, Muslims, etc. It has a lot to do with visceral emotions which cannot be rationalised most of the time.

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. As far as I know, Pakistani history books do not dwell too much on the civilizational history of the land; but to Indian and world historians, all civilizations that existed in India were Indian civilization. So, the question you are raising is largely irrelevant. Indians, especially Hindus identify themselves as much with the Indus civilization, which is now in Pakistan as they do with the areas which are now in India. I think that I am not too brave in suggesting that North Indians identify themselves more with the Indus civilization than with the South Indian civilization, even though the latter is much more `hindu` in nature and has perhaps much more to be proud of in terms of architecture, music, dance, literature and the spread of the civilization outside the subcontinent to South East Asia. And although this is a trivial observation, it bears repeating that although the concept of Hindu itself did not exist before invasions from the North West, the concept of an India/Aryavrat/Bharat did exist, however vaguely. This concept perhaps solidified during the British period. So, internal battles were considered as civil wars, such as the legend of Mahabharat, but the external invasions were not viewed in the same light. The perception would change, of course, if you think of the territory of Pakistan as a separate nation/civilization, in which case invaders from East and West are all external invasions.

Turning back to the so-called Hindu hatred of Muslims, I think that one tends to over-generalise, as rahul has correctly pointed out. As far as I know there is no anti-muslim feeling towards individual muslims at a day to day level. New mosques and madrassas are coming up everywhere in India every month and people interact with each other professionally and, increasingly, even socially. Even at the height of communal frenzy in 1947, most Muslims outside Panjab felt safe enough to stay back and continued to stay there [BTW for any reference to an anti-muslim statement in any mainstream Indian media, one can point to at least five treacherous hindu-bania type statements in even liberal English newspapers from Pakistan, such as Dawn].

I can probably say something about the Panjabi Hindu-Sikh feelings in this regard. While there is no animosity at the individual level, hardly any Panjabi Hindu or Sikh is willing to believe that conversions to Islam were largely peaceful. We all grew on legends of subjugation, demolition of places of worship, forcible conversion, cruelty and torture by Muslim rulers. I have no doubt that many of these legends are exaggerated myths, but it makes no difference. What matters is that people believe in these myths as much as some others believe in God whispering messages into someone`s ears. Once people start believing in myths, they become as, if not more, powerful as proven facts. Learning about these myths does make an indelible impression on one`s psyche.

Dost-mittar, stuka and jang, Talking about sentiments of all Hindus is not meaningless,in fact it does serve a useful purpose, but it will be more fruitful if we can talk not in terms of unprovable generalizations but in terms of concrete manifestations. I will try to come up with a list later(of manifestations), but let me mention this in the passing that I havent heard of a single Hindu talking of Muslim invasion and identifying Muslims with them. I have no way of knowing otherwise, so I wont deny that it may exist. Such assumptions can be risky, though. More later.

Dost-mittar/Stuka #180:``its association with the ``foreign`` rulers of India and their political and temporal acts, as well as their maintaining a distinct identity throughout is considered threatening in a vague sort of way.``

This has been debated quite a bit, on this site. I am still unclear on the stance that individuals in India hold on this: Do they look at, ``invaders`` on the basis of religion. Or do they look at invaders, on the basis of civilisation......

My take has been that Indians want Pakistanis to give their civilisational roots priority over their religious roots, i.e. they assume that Pakistanis are too tied to Mecca and Medina and should be more tied to Taxila and Harrapa. While I don`t agree with the fact that Pakistanis are too tied to Mecca or Medina, I do agree they need to be more tied to Taxila and Harrapa (though not to Calcutta and Patna, or Bombay and Goa)........

However, anytime invaders of the Sub-Continent are discussed, by many of our Indian colleagues on this site, they seem to get divided along religious lines, i.e. Muslims invaders invading a Hindu India, etc. None of the Hindu invadres of the Sub-Continent are considered, at all. And the invaders from the North are not refered to as Central Asian or Afghan etc. They are called Muslims, i.e they are associated with Mecca and Medina, immediately, and not with Kabul and Bukhara...

I think one needs to follow a consistent standard. I tend to follow the one related to civilizations. If we follow that, then the biggest (and fastest), ``invaders`` of South Asia, with the largest empire(s), which subjugated the largest nubmer of civilizations, were actually Hindus. The second biggest were Christians. Muslims come in third............

However, if one is only going to consider the invasions from the North and Northwest, and that too by refereing to them as, ``Muslims,`` then what option is being left for Pakistanis than to look towards Mecca and Medina, instead of Taxila and Harrapa. Since they will always be viewed as the despised second generation of Muslim invaders, by Indians. This is even more applicable on Indian Muslims.......

stuka:

``Hence, the locals who did not convert view Christianity as a religion that threatened their way of life.``

You could have carried the parallels further by noting that many -not all- Goan christians claim to have Portugese blood and have created a distinct culture of food, dress, music etc. for themselves. I have known several Goans who have still not accepted Goa`s annexation with India and prefer to identify themselves as Goan and Goan alone.

:What jang seem to be saying is that clear is that there is no real appreciation for the positive aspects of islam or muslims (and points to the low rate of conversion from hinduism to islam). ``

HP, Tahemd:

The above statement is actually the closest to the truth. If I was to give a rough amateur analysis, I would say that Christianity is viewed as the religion of missionaries who have worked for social and economic upliftment. Hence, though Hindus may not convert en masse to Christianity, they view it as a relatively benign religion and its adherents are perceived as non threatening. Again, this speaks to the common man (rural / urban) and does not speak to the active dislike / hate that VHP types may feel.

OTOH, the perception of Islam is based on it being the religion of the mediavel establishment. Hence it is associated with force and injustice, rightly or wrongly. Though the spread of Islam was mostly dependent on Sufis, its association with the ``foreign`` rulers of India and their political and temporal acts, as well as their maintaining a distinct identity throughout is considered threatening in a vague sort of way.

Now, interestingly, the one place where Christianity is not considered in a positive light by non Christians is in Goa which was a Portuguese colony. Unlike the English who were secular in their perception of India as a colony, the Portuguese established the Roman Catholic church as a state religion for 400 years. Portuguese rule in Goa documents some demolishing of temples, and an active effort to convert the local populations. Hence, the locals who did not convert view Christianity as a religion that threatened their way of life.

kaalchakra #176 No problem sir. Will look forward to your post.

#177 by ana on June 11, 2005 0:15am PT


that should be so obvious as to not have even merited being associated with the report.


It isn`t obvious to prophet tahmed(peace be unto his self-righteous left butt cheek)...he says the hindus make pakis into the frothing at the mouth jihadis they are....



be it about terrorism or anything else just to point out what a bunch of hypocrites they are out of the goodness of your heart?


I never claimed to have goodness in my heart...everytime i send a collection of such stories to my congressman or senator or an indian lobbying group, goodness for pakis is the last thing on my mind...each one of us has to do his or her part in oppossing supporters of terrorism....


no one can really stop you. so you get called a paki-hater.


That`s right...when i post a poll saying 65% of Pakis think OBL is a freedom fighter, I am the paki-hater(for posting a fact)...
the 65% of pakis who think OBL is a freedom fighter(or who think suicide bombings are justified)...well..they`re not full of hatred...they have a perfectly good reason for feeling the way they do...we need to look at the root cause blah blah....

arjun,

wtf. . .perhaps you failed to note the tone i asked that question in. my apologies. and no, the hatred of the hindus is not what turns pakistani men into jihadis. that should be so obvious as to not have even merited being associated with the report.

(although what jihadis do is not entirely disconnected from hindus.)

and forgive me arjun, but the facts you present aside, this does have something to do with your ``feelings``. what, d`you bring everything that`s negative about pakistanis (and there is plenty, believe me), be it about terrorism or anything else just to point out what a bunch of hypocrites they are out of the goodness of your heart?

you do have a point though. your feelings do not change the facts. how you present them doesn`t change them either. i`m not making lame arguments for or against the facts. most of my remarks were made sarcastically, and in jest. and if you want to continue with your ``lookie here, what a bunch of BS. . .`` no one can really stop you. so you get called a paki-hater. . . there are worse things in this world, as you never fail to remind us. . .

tahmed32

With your permission, I will get back to the issue tomorrow. Right now, the very subject of hatred is making me feel uneasy.

I cannot believe the nonsense I wrote about hatred, earlier in the day today...What an ugly example of blind rationality devoid of any uplifting sense of morality.

---

HP, thanks! That was very impressive, and educational for me. Had no clue about the three interesting UP`ians. Your portrayal of early Jinnah is right on, and needs to be appreciated.

Are you sure about Sir Syed not being very educated? He rose to the position of a subjudgeship and wrote a few books. I guessed that might have put him among the most educated back then.

#173 by ana on June 10, 2005 8:50pm PT


how come you didn`t highlight the section that says the government`s record on terrorism arrests is not unblemished?


And O.J. Simpson got off....so, by your logic, the DA should stop prosecuting every murderer the cops bust....

Now that it`s clear that there are plenty of pakistani jihadis who didn`t get that way because they were exposed to the hatred of the hindus, you make lame arguments?


to find a different approach to express your feelings?


This isn`t about my feelings...this is about a bunch of pakis being busted for terrorism and a bunch of pakis who support islamic terrorism....and about hollow claims(made by pakistanis) about pakistanis being full of love and against fundamentalism....how I express it doesn`t change that fact...

wtf do you want me to say? poverty makes a majority of pakistanis support islamic terrorists who would kill Indians and Americans?