Last Rites in Kashmir or a New Journey?

Dionysus:

So what if India did not exist as a Nation State prior to 1947? The conecpt of Nation State itself is post the Traeaty of Westphalia, making it a scarce 400 years old, a mere bucket in the ocean of history.

Now Romair, and Pakistanis in general, confuse Indian civilization with Indian Nation State. He asks what does a person in Bihar have in Common with the person in Punjab...How about similar features, the same root language, similar religious traditons...what the fuck more consitute a common culture?

Now, you may laugh with glee at the fact that Indian civilization is based on Hindu civilization, hence proving TNT. My response is that whereas Indian civilzation historically existed as a Hindu civilization, the Indian Nation state schose to make religion distinct from politics. But, if a number of Muslims choose to define their identity in religious terms,. that is their right and they created Pakistan.

Now coming to ownership of Kashmir. From a civilizational perspective, it is India and India alone that has the right to have a moral claim on Kasshmir. The original inhabitants of Kashmir were Hindu. That Hindu relgion maintained its presence inspite of the Islamic onslaught and continues to do so till today. The Hindus of Kashmir owe allegience to India. As do Sikhs and Buddhists. If some locals chose to convert to a foreign religion they are wecome to walk to whhereaver the religion is from. Unlike the USSR, India has never forced its people to stay in. If those people do not feel that their accepting a religion gives them a forewign identity, they are welcome to stay. The Indian state merely reinforces India`s moral right to Kashmir in the face of Islamo-fascist bullying.

masanamuthu #233: ``Again, I`m not interested in fighting revenge battles on historical reasons.. When you look at contemporary religions and compare the followers of such religions, you find Islam to be the most intolerant and least reformed.. This is the opinion of the majority of non-Muslims and their numbers are growing..``

You seem extremely interested in quoting from the Quran? Why is that? We are not discussing the Quran. Why don`t I have any interest in quoting from the Hindu Vedas? Please do go ahead and quote. Let`s see how knowledgeable you are. I hope your knowledge of the Quran exceeds your knowledge of Ashoka.........

Studying history, of South Asia, objectively is very important. I would suggest you study that first, before trying to study the religious books of other faiths. This is what I do. Especially for Indians. And specially for Indian Hindus. It is this history, on the basis of which, many current social relationships are being formed. I think it affects Indian Muslims the most.

If everyone in India, keeps thinking that Ashoka did not kill anyone and only Ghaznavi did. And that any Hindu who invaded another land in South Asia was a hero and any Muslim (specifically one who did not have Hindu wives) who invaded another land was an invader, then they will always have a view of Islam, that you currently have.

This is not going to affect Muslims in Pakistan, since they are secure, across a border. But as I stated, it will definitely put the Muslims in India in a vulnerable position. I think much of the dislike for them, that we are discussing here on this site, is based on such biased understanding and interpretation of history...........I think much of the rise of the BJP is based on such one-sided study of history. Anyone who can present Muslims as the only invaders of Hind (a geographical union of various nations, with no historical basis of unity if one takes out religion) and any Hindu invaders as, ``unifiers`` of Hind, then it becomes very easy to rile up local populations.............

In such an environment, Muslims will always be despised as the second generation of invaders...........

Re: # 235

Romair:

``You seem extremely interested in quoting from the Quran? Why is that? We are not discussing the Quran. Why don`t I have any interest in quoting from the Hindu Vedas? Please do go ahead and quote. Let`s see how knowledgeable you are. I hope your knowledge of the Quran exceeds your knowledge of Ashoka.........

---

Because you alluded to hate speech from Hindu Indians, I reminded you of the hate speech from Quran.. You are free to quote from Vedas.. That is called the freedom of speech..

Well for a start, some samples from Quran chapter 2: the cow :-))

Quran Surah 2: The Cow

Don`t bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 6
Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 10
A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 24
Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 39, 90
For disbelievers is a painful doom. 104
For unbelievers: ignominy in this world, an awful doom in the next. 114
Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire. 126
The doom of the disbelievers will not be lightened. 162
They will not emerge from the Fire. 167
Those who hide the Scripture will have their bellies eaten with fire. Theirs will be a painful doom. 174
How constant are they in their strife to reach the Fire! 175
Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 191
War is ordained by Allah. 216
Those who die in their disbelief will burn forever in the Fire. 217
Disbelievers worship false gods. They will burn forever in the Fire. 257
Allah does not guide disbelievers. 264
``Give us victory over the disbelieving folk.`` 286

References:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/quranindex.html
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Quran.htm

Now, If this doesn`t sound like hate speech then what is??

---

``Studying history, of South Asia, objectively is very important. I would suggest you study that first, before trying to study the religious books of other faiths. This is what I do. Especially for Indians. And specially for Indian Hindus. It is this history, on the basis of which, many current social relationships are being formed. I think it affects Indian Muslims the most.

If everyone in India, keeps thinking that Ashoka did not kill anyone and only Ghaznavi did. And that any Hindu who invaded another land in South Asia was a hero and any Muslim (specifically one who did not have Hindu wives) who invaded another land was an invader, then they will always have a view of Islam, that you currently have....``

-- FYI I never said Ashoka did not kill people.. This is what I said..

``Good question.. .. The revulsion about the invasion from Ghori/Ghazni than the invasion of Ashoka maybe due to the accompanied atrocities carried out by the armies.. While it`s clearly documented and boasted by Ghazni there is no documented atrocities (atleast that I know of..) from Ashoka.. other than Ashoka himself changing his heart on seeing the destruction caused by wars and enforcing a golden rule.. ``

and this is how I ended..

``History/Religion are different beasts to different people.. I think it`s better to focus on current affairs and see how we can just move on.. I am not religious (infact anti-religious esp.. anti-Hindu to begin with..) had no knowledge of Islam/Quran.. before I chanced upon a few websites.. I think you`ve alluded to ``hate speech`` by Hindu Indians in a few responses in this board.. I felt like laughing.. What`s your opinion on the ``hate speech`` in your ``holy book``?.. Do you want me to quote the verses??.. :-))

Makes sense??..

Dost-mittar #230: ``There is no doubt in my or anyone else`s mind. It has nothing to do with religion. Ashok and Akbar are both the same in the Indian historian`s view. Both invaded other kings and rulers in India and expanded their empires. Both are considered heroes in India. Neither is considered an external invader even though Akbar was only two generations removed from an invader.``

If there isn`t a doubt, then there definitely should be one. And this is what I am trying to get to. There may not be a doubt in many Muslims` minds that Ghauri and Ghaznavi basically expanaded the Muslim empire. But there should be one.

There are people on this site, who don`t even know that Ashoka killed so many people! Talk about having a false view of history. It is quite possible there would have been one hundred more Dost-mittars running around in Ottowa, today, had it not been for Ashoka, his father, and his grandfather invading your neighborhood.

Yet you consider him a hero? How can you then complain if someone in Lahore or Peshawar considers Ghaznavi a hero?

If Ashok and Akbar invaded and expanded empires, then why in the world are they considered, ``heroes?`` They can only be considered heroes, in the places they came from. Not the places they invaded. Why not consider all invaders and expanders heroes? Why just Ashoka and Akbar? The reason is quite simple. It is religion, and nothing else. Akbar is portrayed to be tolerant towards Hinduism. Ashoka was originally a Hindu. Hence, if they invaded some area, it seems alright.

If everyone starts using this kind of thinking, then invasions do become religion-based. Muslims will consider the Hindus invaders. And Hindus will consider Muslims invaders.

Romair:

``I have no agenda``

Maybe. For a while, I thought that you were trying to prove that Pakistan is a natural civilizational state whrereas India is not.

Romair:

There is no doubt in my or anyone else`s mind. It has nothing to do with religion. Ashok and Akbar are both the same in the Indian historian`s view. Both invaded other kings and rulers in India and expanded their empires. Both are considered heroes in India. Neither is considered an external invader even though Akbar was only two generations removed from an invader.
[Carry on with others. I`ll be back tomorrow. Have this stupid project deadline to meet today].

Re: # 230

dost-mittar:

``There is no doubt in my or anyone else`s mind. It has nothing to do with religion. Ashok and Akbar are both the same in the Indian historian`s view. ..``

I disagree with this.. If I assume you`re comparing Ashok with Ghazni.. Ghazni was treated by his biographer (aberuni, I think) as a great iconoclast.. For Muslims / Islam worshipping idols is a great sin.. It was Ghazni`s religious duty to destroy the kafirs.. I can`t attribute any such religious motive to Ashoka..

Again, I`m not interested in fighting revenge battles on historical reasons.. When you look at contemporary religions and compare the followers of such religions, you find Islam to be the most intolerant and least reformed.. This is the opinion of the majority of non-Muslims and their numbers are growing..

Ah... I see that in my absence certain people had a field day trying to raise Ghaffar Khan above Jinnah...

Well all I will say is that in the US National Archives there are reports from Howard Donovan to George Marshall which set right the lies perpetuated by Indians about NWFP referendum. (US National Archives 845.00 7/47)

According to these letters:

1) ML won the referendum fair and square

2) the ``Secular`` Ghaffar Khan and his ``secular`` followers were trying to destabilize NWFP by claiming that Pakistan`s rulers were unislamic and even anti-Islam.

3) Ghaffar Khan was in collusion with Fakir of Ipi who was planning a revolt in the name of Sharia.

4) Gandhi supported these efforts.


This would put to rest such claims as made by netizen.

masanamuthu #226: ``The revulsion about the invasion from Ghori/Ghazni than the invasion of Ashoka maybe due to the accompanied atrocities carried out by the armies.. While it`s clearly documented and boasted by Ghazni there is no documented atrocities (atleast that I know of..) from Ashoka.. other than Ashoka himself changing his heart on seeing the destruction caused by wars and enforcing a golden rule...``

Yes, and a lot of Muslims think that Ghauri and Ghaznavi set up a golden rule, as well.......... this is what happens when one takes a biased view of history, based on one`s religion or nationalistic loyalties..........

Ghauri, Ghaznavi, Ashoka, Chandragupta, Mohd bin Qasim etc. were all kings and rulers spreading their empires. They weren`t running NGOs and donig charity work for the locals. The invaded areas, crushed uprisings, took over places etc., outside their own civilizations.......

How exactly does a person and his family spread their empire from Patna to Afghanistan, Maysore and Taxila, other than by fighting battles? Do they play the flute and convince everyone to follow them? Obviously Ashoka invaded left and right and killed people. In fact, he is, in geographical terms, the biggest invader of South Asian history...........

Here are some quotes from Wikepedia on Ashoka. I am singling them out because it is accepted, at least on this site (including by me), that Ghauri, Ghaznavi etc. are invaders. However, I seem to be having a hard time convincing many of our colleagues that people of all religions should be considered invaders, if they invade another area:

``the early part of Ashoka`s reign was apparently quite bloodthirsty..........

The province (Taxila) revolted once more during the rule of Ashoka, but this time the uprising was crushed with an iron hand......

As the folklore goes, in a fit of rage, Prince Ashoka attacked Pataliputra (modern day Patna), and beheaded all his brothers, including Susima, and threw their bodies in a well in Pataliputra. At that stage of his life, many called him Chanda Ashoka meaning murderer and heartless Ashoka..........

Ascending the throne, Ashoka expanded his empire over the next eight years, expanding it from the present-day boundaries of Bangladesh and the state of Assam in India in the east to the territory of present-day Iran and Afghanistan in the west; from the Palmir Knots in the north to the almost peninsular part of southern India......

Ashoka, baffled at this defeat, attacked with the greatest invasion ever recorded in Indian history until then. Kalinga put up a stiff resistance, but they were no match for Ashoka`s brutal strength. The whole of Kalinga was plundered and destroyed: Ashoka`s later edicts say that about 100,000 people were killed on the Kalinga side and 10,000 from Ashoka`s army; thousands of men and women were deported........`` http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka

Let us try to study the history of the various parts of South Asia, without biases towards religions and the countries we may belong to.........In eight years Ashoka invaded and conquered more area than the British invaders did in 200 years, and the Muslim invaders did in 700 years.........One cannot conquer so much land without a lot of violence............We should recognize all of them as foreign invaders, if they did not originate from the local civilizations........In the case of Ghaznavi it was an invasion from Afghanistan. In case of British, from England. And in case of Ashoka, from present day Bangladesh...............

Re: # 228:

Romair:

This is what I said..

``History/Religion are different beasts to different people.. I think it`s better to focus on current affairs and see how we can just move on.. I am not religious (infact anti-religious esp.. anti-Hindu to begin with..) had no knowledge of Islam/Quran.. before I chanced upon a few websites.. I think you`ve alluded to ``hate speech`` by Hindu Indians in a few responses in this board.. I felt like laughing.. What`s your opinion on the ``hate speech`` in your ``holy book``?.. Do you want me to quote the verses??.. :-)) ..``

---

jang #223: ``Romair, please acknowledge reality before carrying on revisionism. If pakistanis indeed consider Gazni to be a local and Asoka to be a bihari, so be it. My guess is they dont know about Asoka at all.``

You need to stop seeing everything as, ``Pakistan.`` I did not mention the word Pakistan. I am trying to figure what the criteria used for invasions happens to be. It has nothing to do with Pakistan, or India......

I think people have a double standard, on both sides. When someone of their own religion invades an area, they consider it a civil war, and consider the invader to be a uniter of empires. When someone of another religion invades the area, the consider the person to be an invader..............

I think this is done both on the Muslim and Hindu side. I think anyone of any religion who invades an area is an invader............

Dost-mittar #209: `` have answered that question several times on chowk.``

What is your answer. Perhaps I missed it. Why not just give the answer. Do you think religion or civilization should be used to decide historical associations?

``To me and to almost everyone else, Ashok was not an outsider to India. It has nothing to do with religion;...I have never heard anyone describing Ashok as an external invasion.``

To me, your defintion of ``Hind`` seems no different than the concept of Ummah..........

A guy comes all the way from Patna and conquers Taxila or Amritsar and he is not an invader. But if a guy comes from Kabul or Isphahan and conqueres Taxila, he is an invader. It doesn`t make sense to me. Considering the fact, that at a civilizational level (and geographical level) over time, people of Taxila, look and speak more like those from Kabul and Isphahan than Patna.............

This is the who point I am trying to make. There seems to be a double standard here. Why aren`t invaders from the East considered invaders, of Punjab and other areas? But those from the North and West are?

Suppose Chandargupta and Ashok had converted to Islam and then conquered the Sub-Continent. Would they be invaders then........

``But you are free to rewrite history to suit your agenda.``

I have no agenda.......... I am just trying to point to a double standard, that seems to exist, in dealing with history.........Specifically the history of the area that I currently live....And am trying to point out that definition of invader seems to be, specifically, anyone Muslim.

Re: # 225

``A guy comes all the way from Patna and conquers Taxila or Amritsar and he is not an invader. But if a guy comes from Kabul or Isphahan and conqueres Taxila, he is an invader. It doesn`t make sense to me. Considering the fact, that at a civilizational level (and geographical level) over time, people of Taxila, look and speak more like those from Kabul and Isphahan than Patna.............

This is the who point I am trying to make. There seems to be a double standard here. Why aren`t invaders from the East considered invaders, of Punjab and other areas? But those from the North and West are? ..``

---

Good question.. .. The revulsion about the invasion from Ghori/Ghazni than the invasion of Ashoka maybe due to the accompanied atrocities carried out by the armies.. While it`s clearly documented and boasted by Ghazni there is no documented atrocities (atleast that I know of..) from Ashoka.. other than Ashoka himself changing his heart on seeing the destruction caused by wars and enforcing a golden rule..

Personally I care two hoots about either Ashoka/Ghazni/Ghori. My ancestors never fought in those battles or suffered. They probably fought and died for local Tamil kings etc... Ghori/Ghazni might have screwed the local populations (most of whom are obviously now the ancestors of pakistanis.. the naming of missiles after Ghori/Ghazni is a big irony :-)..)

History/Religion are different beasts to different people.. I think it`s better to focus on current affairs and see how we can just move on.. I am not religious (infact anti-religious esp.. anti-Hindu to begin with..) had no knowledge of Islam/Quran.. before I chanced upon a few websites.. I think you`ve alluded to ``hate speech`` by Hindu Indians in a few responses in this board.. I felt like laughing.. What`s your opinion on the ``hate speech`` in your ``holy book``?.. Do you want me to quote the verses??.. :-))

I was in a village, where there was a Pir Urs. The village schoolmasters son, a brahmin was much involved in the organizing committee, and i was tagging along..apparently the fireworks were a major thing. so i thought this is the real nice amar-akbar-anthony village. however, then the son made some negative comments about the muslim community. upon querying, emerged an interesting view..he completely believed in the Pir as a local good-man, but thought the muslims are not to be trusted and have done nothing positive as ``Muslims``. No sign of VHP or RSS anywhre .. the nearest asphalt road some 2 miles away. Apparently, the community lived tension-free, and participated in some things like the Urs with much cohesion. That is reality of india. No muslims and hindus have any ``relatives``.. even great Rajput Romair has no known hindu relatives! the bonds were severed clean. OTOH folks have Jains will often have hindu side of family, so will sikhs, an some goan-christians.

we should understand this reality accurately..its not about hatred. is that an attempt to paint things in stark contrast to push an idealogical preset point?

Romair, please acknowledge reality before carrying on revisionism. If pakistanis indeed consider Gazni to be a local and Asoka to be a bihari, so be it. My guess is they dont know about Asoka at all.

Apparently pakistanis have concluded, it must be a hindu disease which causes the dim-view of muslims among non-muslims..LOL.

I was in a village, where there was a Pir Urs. The village schoolmasters son, a brahmin was much involved in the organizing committee, and i was tagging along..apparently the fireworks were a major thing. so i thought this is the real nice amar-akbar-anthony village. however, then the son made some negative comments about the muslim community. upon querying, emerged an interesting view..he completely believed in the Pir as a local good-man, but thought the muslims are not to be trusted and have done nothing positive as ``Muslims``. No sign of VHP or RSS anywhre .. the nearest asphalt road some 2 miles away. Apparently, the community lived tension-free, and participated in some things like the Urs with much cohesion. That is reality of india. No muslims and hindus have any ``relatives``.. even great Rajput Romair has no known hindu relatives! the bonds were severed clean. OTOH folks have Jains will often have hindu side of family, so will sikhs, an some goan-christians.

we should understand this reality accurately..its not about hatred. is that an attempt to paint things in stark contrast to push an idealogical preset point?

Romair, please acknowledge reality before carrying on revisionism. If pakistanis indeed consider Gazni to be a local and Asoka to be a bihari, so be it. My guess is they dont know about Asoka at all.

Apparently pakistanis have concluded, it must be a hindu disease which causes the dim-view of muslims among non-muslims..LOL.

LoC solution Pakistan’s best hope: Blackwill

Washington: Former US ambassador to India Robert D Blackwill, now a senior official at the National Security Council, has said that India would never give up territory it controls in Jammu and Kashmir and the best deal that Pakistan can hope for is to accept the permanence of the present Line of Control.

The former ambassador asserted that the Indian government “will give up no territory it now controls, including in Jammu and Kashmir. Officially, India remains committed to the return of Pakistani-controlled Kashmir to India. But the Indian elite would likely settle for the permanent international border being drawn along the current Line of Control. Therefore, unless the Pakistani government and the army change for good their objective and accept the current division of territory, the Kashmir dispute will go on for a very long time. Cross-border terrorist violence from Pakistan against India could resume. The two countries that would be most negatively affected by a convulsion within Pakistan, a country with dozens of nuclear weapons, are India and the United States. Bush Administration policy regarding Pakistan has been adept and effective to this point, but that could change tomorrow if Musharraf is murdered. This is why both India and the United States have such a stake in the emergence of a democratic, stable and prosperous Pakistan. Washington and New Delhi should have a sustained secret dialogue on how best to promote that historic goal.”