Who Created Pakistan?

I dont want to indulge in a pising match, I am just stating facts as I see them, I will make one more attempt to clarify my position.

you made a very perceptive statement ``What a load of crap. I have seen more moaning and sobbing for the Gujarat riots than I saw for 1984 Sikh riots when civil society pretty much decided the Sikhs had it coming.``

In the developing world we know that whomever may participate in a riot it cannot take place without the consent and often active support of the majority, thus when the State too fails to provide protection or actively becomes a tool for persecution it along with the majority becomes a target for retaliation. I am not argueing about whether this is right or wrong - moral or immoral all i am saying is that this happens and more importantly it seems to work !

You are misinformed about UP, the PAC has been heavily communalised from way back in the 50s and 60s and the worst riots in UP took place in the 70s and 80s (meerut, malliana, kanpur, moradabad etc) led by the PAC (general communal hostility and opportunity to loot) , district adm. (again general communal hostility plus perception of muslims as anti national), trading community (communal hostility plus opportunity to eliminate competition) and in rural areas certain caste groups which could gain they could be lower (dalit OBC) or uppercastes. All supported by the hindu civil society actively or tacitly.

But once the muslim response stiffened and they were ready to confront the PAC remarkably the rioting fell, even after Babri fell there were few major riots in UP ! and since then apart from Kanpur I dont know of any, even that was small compared to the past. It must be mentioned that this happened partly due to the maturing of democracy in UP but it was not only under Mulayam`s govt. that this peace was maintained (which would not allow a general rampage by the PAC because of the exigencies of democratic politics) but even under the BJP.


Secondly It doesnt matter how much wringing of the hands takes place in the english press (which only a small percentage read anyway, leave aside the poison and lies the vernacular press spews), what matters is on the ground not a single culprit gets punished. The minority knows this and what is more impoprtant the majority does too, hence after mass stripings and rapes in 1992 Surat you see a repeat performance on a much larger scale all across the state in 2002. however much the state machinery may be controlled by the majority this will not happen in UP not because the people of UP are angels compared to the Gujratis but because they know that most of UP will be plunged into a civil war, muslims still constitute a quarter to a third of the population in many major cities and they are ready to bear only upto a certain extent.

You are right the babri masjid fell in UP, but let me remind you that
a)Faizabad area has a miniscule percentage of muslims (as I have ben pointing out about areas in which minorities are too small to raise the costs for the other side in riots)

b) it had heavy PAC and CRPF deployment (equal to an army division), the PAC was controlled by the BJP state govt. and Kalyan Singh had given a pledge to the Supreme court and the Centre, which he broke. Similarly the CRPF was controlled by the center and I dont need to tell you Narasimha Rao`s role in that one act which cost the congress a decade in the wilderness.

Nonetheless no humans were raped or mutilated, if that had happened your point would have been validated.

If the state forsakes or actively chooses to collude against certain citizens because of the colour of their skin, religion etc it has abrogated the one act from which it derives its legitimacy in western political theory which in turn gives us the modern concept of nationhood based on civic citizenship. in such circumsatnces any minority group will take any action it deems neccessary to protect itself. As mike pointed out below in the case of bangladesh, were both ties of religion and citizenship were abrogated by the Pakistani state once it refused to provide east bengalis protection or actively colluded in brutalising them. the bengalis then took help from any quarter they got including RAW, no matter how indignantly other Pakistanis viewed this situation.

You are right there are few districts in which muslims are 30% of the population, and the army plus police too is overwhelmingly hindu but if my family is going to be harmed today I am not going to be worried about what the army or police is going to do tommorow to me. I will do what i need to do today to protect them.

Secondly even for the Army it will not be easy to undertake a mass pogrom, many units will mutiny especially the southern ones, and China, Pakistan, US and Bangladesh are not overwhelmingly hindu, they will impose sanctions, provide arms and generally take advantage of the situation, there will be pockets of fierce resistance and a general breakdown of law and order at least in the north.

PS: If you still beleive I am advocating the killing of Ramesh in Dhaka to avenge Iqbal in Gujarat you have mised my point completely. Resistance can only be local, because empathy and hatred, impunity and fear reside locally.

let me clarify by local I mean the very same village or locality.

Re: # 81 hindvi
//....this happens and more importantly it seems to work ! ...//

That`s problem with your analysis. ``Retaliation`` works - that`s the overriding raison-d-etre of communalists and fanatics everywhere - I am surprised you are towing that line.

One of your points is valid - communalists on both sides have to be punished - Modi for Gujrat , Rajiv Gandhi for 1984 [ He is dead, even then ] , muslim communalists for Godhra. Law and Order has to be enforced, no matter what.

At the same time - I have come across reports that riots are almost always are started by muslims. How much of this is true? If that is the case - then your ``retaliation`` theory will make things worse.

So Hindvi, would it be OK for India to provide ``help`` to Hindus in Bangaldesh or
Pakistan if they ask and would it be OK for them to ask India`s help?
I believe Hindus in those oppressive countries perhaps have many more grievances
against their Muslim countrymen, they just can`t express yet.
And even if they are not, if they percieve so and ask for help, should India provide?

Any what happens when minority wants to play by its rules without any considerations to the Majority or other minorities? Do you think Majority is always at fault no matter what? Frankly, why do not I see Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Zoarastrians, Christians do not have same complaints against ``Majority`` as Muslims do all the time?

And can this ``help business`` apply in the context of any country? How about mexicans in USA, especially the border states? This may not be applicable now, but who has seen the future?

#81

I didnt know Modi`s ``action-reaction`` theory had such strong following.

#81

I didnt know Modi`s ``action-reaction`` theory had such strong following.

#80 by Netizen

Baba,
“they cannot accept this change if its not in line to what written centuries back and hence they become more conservative and grudgingly modify their outlook. This in turn creates more friction.”

There is lots of truth to what you say but one thing you and many even very well educated Indians forget that minorities are always more conservative, inward looking and if they are in a perpetual conflict with the majority, will continue to look outside for support and symbols.
For example, Jews throughout the history in Europe looked inwards and dreamt of their symbols outside of Europe.

History has lots of cruelty written in it. Many nations and people have suffered throughout the centuries. In fact, many civilizations lost out to brutalities. The current Indian Nationalism is built of rhetoric and not on sound values. In fact, I should say that there are two clear trends in India. One group is attempting to lead India on practical and scientific grounds and the other group is shouting from the top of the lungs and blaming others for its rather slow walk to progress. Both groups are nationalist one wants to build consensus in the society and other feels that consensus would open playing field for the same group that it holds responsible for centuries of foreign rules and perhaps slavery.

We should also not discount the natural differences that many communities have. Like the difference, Blacks and White have in this Society and they went thru a period in the 60s, when life and property had no meaning. But they have moved forward. Both communities still have problems but by and large they have learnt to live with each other.

The whites still are blamed and the Blacks still get accused but a vast majority does not live in fear or in contempt of each other.

Building consensus is not easy and in Pakistan where one faith dominates, people of different provinces still don’t see eye to eye on several issues. Despite the commonality of religion, other differences come into play.

In situations where communities have difficulty in getting along like the case in India, the role of state machinery becomes important and since in India, the majority community controls the state machinery, it has more responsibilities to create environments of, if not cooperation, at least restrained aloofness.
Accusing the minority on all counts, would not create national cohesion and any attempt to make progress would be bogged down. The majority community in India has more responsibility just for its own country’s sake to create peaceful environment for all.

Re: # 78 HP
//... majority refuses space to minority to grow and prosper....//

Not true. This has been pointed out quite a few times already. There is enough space to grow and prosper, as much as possible in an under-developed country .... Other minorities [far less in number] have grown and prospered ...... The ``space`` has NEVER been constricted in any systematic manner - even though cases of discrimination may exist - as it does anywhere else.

what has been responsible for lack of growth is ghettoisation and general orthodoxy of the muslim community itself. In fact - that has been a constant complain from the majority community - ``mainstreaming`` is the word used often to describe the lack of initiative from inside the community to grow out of orthodoxy and backwardness. Vote-bank politics also has played a role in keeping it that way, as well as - lack of enlightened civic leadership from inside the community.

+++
//....Majority somehow got into the frame of mind that it is the victim ....//

Yet another myth. Majority is miffed at the virulent muslim communalism which exists in pockets and eventually bursts into violence - because of ineffective leasership and lack of law enforcement. Majority has never sought any kind of curbs on the muslims or anybody else - in social, political, educational, constitutional or any other sphere of public life.

At it`s best - majority has always tried to be inclusive - which, in some cases, has been been rebuffed by the minority as an attempt to dilute ``muslim culture`` or something. At the worst - there has been severe neglect of providing a stronger helping hand to the community.... Either way - appropriating a ``victim mentality`` on the majority community is a gross injustice on a people who have always stood for plurality, secualrism, inclusiveness and have proved that over and over again, in theory and practice - exceptions notwithstanding.

Hindvi ,

``Sorry, the muslims (or any other minority) are not going to sit around to be raped and butchered for some notion of nationhood to which the majority themselves dont consider them party, they are going to take help from any quarter (ISI, CIA, KGB) they get. Its up to you if you wish to escalate the situation by indulging in a general massacre, then in areas in which they are above 30% there will be a civil war with help taken from any neighbouring country that offers it. In other areas they will be wiped out. ``

You know - thats analogous to what came first , the chicken or the egg theory . Do hindus attack muslims because muslims indulge in anti-national activity in collusion with enemies from across the border , or do muslims indulge in anti-national activity in connivance with ISI etc. because they are targeted by hindus...............each one has his own answer and justification....

.....but as a hindu...I thank you for being so open about muslims colluding with Pakistani elements. Thank you also for your warped explanation of concepts such as citizenship and nationalism. Whatever sympathy I had for muslims , I have lost. All that crap about secularism seems to hold only for hindus. Might is the only thing that is right under the circumstances. Next time there is a riot , I intend to have some fun ;)

Re: # 81
Hindvi:

With regard to all your bombastic bhendi bazaar mentality/rhetoric about how U.P. Muslims have ``stopped`` riots by fighting back, I have one question for you. Why the hell they vote strategiclaly for Mullah Mulayam and in case SP is not strong then vote for anyone strong against BJP. Why don`t they let BJP come to power(in UP) and then use their muscle power to fight back?
Mulayam for no reason is called Mullah. And he himself proclaims to be the saviour of the muslims in UP.

Its quite apparent to me that hindus will not be allowed to live in peace and India will not prosper as long as muslims remain in India. While it is true that there is a tiny section of Indian muslim population that is staunchy pro-India , and a small middle class that just wants to live and let live , the rest are absolute jihadis baying (silently for now) for the kufr blood. It is a matter of regret regret that we didn`t finish off the 8-9% muslims who were left in India post-1947. Now muslims - who breed like rabbits - comprise of 16% of India`s population. Our secularism will be the end of us.

Pakistanis were smart. They either chased away , killed or converted the hindus left in their country. From 13-14% in 1947 , the kufr population has been brought down to a neutered 1%. There is so much one can learn - even from the vilest elements.

Re: # 86 HP
//...The majority community in India has more responsibility just for its own country’s sake to create peaceful environment for all...//

Thanks for the advice - unnecessary as it is. The majority community in india has been fulfilling its responsibility with considerable success. Pluralism, secularism exists in india not because of muslims demand it [mostly, they don`t] but because majority wants it. They always have and always will - that`s their way of life.

If you flip the context - 80% muslim, 15% hindu - there would NOT be any pluralism, secularism and any such good things .... neither would you be pontificating about the ``responsibility`` of the majority, because pluralism is always completely out of question -whenever the majority is muslim. So there is never any scope of any discourse on how pakis or bdeshis should excercise ``more responsibility`` towards the minorities among them. That`s sad.

people are getting unnecessarily emotional. my reading of history has given me a por view of human nature. The situation I have described below is one of a minority-majority, the actors could be reversed or could blong to some other religion or even non religous affiliations like tribe as in Rawanda or ethnicity as in East Pakistan. peole are the same every where, though sometimes economic well being reduces the scramble for resources.

people everywhere feel a love to the place they belong, but people no where are angels if the state doesnot fulfil its part of the agreement or colludes in harming them then they will reciprocate the feeling.

what makes the situation take a vicious turn is indoctrinated prejudice and a persecution complex like milosovic`s repetition of the battle of kosovar or the sangh`s harping on muslim cruelty. not that the minority is free from such prejudice but it is not in a position to extract a cost for an imagined wrong.

successful states are able to prevent such propoganda and hate speech. when they arent a Bosnia or gujarat or babri happens.

again i repeat majorities in bangladesh behave the same way as majorities in India, though because of diff. historical factors they dont have the same hitorical persecution complex. and muslims in UP or elsewherehave adjusted to the situation just as hindus would have if the positions had been reversed. they too would have felt the need to impose some costs on the majority, even if they lost more just to prevent a repeat.

history is full of brutality whether it was the mongols or it was the crusaders or the spaniards or the christin denominations or the muslims or indeed the hindus as we know from the wiping out of budhism in india. its only a question of what we choose to repeat and exxagerate.

HP,
my observation is that the indian polity is now far more vocal. when i was in college, things were far more PC, but this does not mean that muslims were having a good time. however, the chattering class muslims were far more comfortable. whatever riots happened, they happend in muhallas, old mughal-time weaver towns, about some religious stuff like ganesh puja or muharrum festivities. chattering class muslims were comfortably secure. now the overall security situation is actually much better, godhra or mumbai riots notwithstanding, but brash-talk is ever higher. this makes chatterring classes more insecure... i mean its scary if you go to your hindu buddies house and see ``Garv Se Kaho Hum Hindu Hain`` sticker on the almira. but the number of riots are far and few and highly publicized, and normal muslim is going on with hisand her life in more peace. the chattering classes however are no more sure, because the brash talk is very high.

Gujju is unnecessarily threatened by ISI innterference. even during my PC younger days, muslims always had a soft-corner for pakistan, but that did not mean we stopped interacting with muslims in a normal way for conducting bussiness etc. mostly its just a soft-ummah-type feeling, no big deal.

#92 are bengali hindus know to cause riots? are there hindu-muslim riots in bangladesh? majority-minority relations in india and bangladesh are different type i think.

#93 by jang
Jang,

You are one hell of a guy and I agree with you on this. It is simply not possible for people to burn in hate all the time. I had Hindu friends in Hyderabad and some of them certainly had soft corner for India. It never threatened anybody in our circle. I remember in 1979 when the Indian cricket team came to Pakistan, a couple of them said that “Chandar Sheker in sub ki le le gaa.”
We had a good argument but nobody cared that they supported Indian team because they were Hindu. It is natural given the history of the subcontinent. It is also your personal state of mind. If you have knots in your head, you will feel threatened by any thing that moves.

The religious conflicts in India are an unpleasant fact and they have been happening for a long time. One extreme of that conflict was the creation of Pakistan. Would Indian continue to perpetuate the extreme within their society or find a way to move beyond?
Funny that on the one hand Indians cite communalism as the basis for creation of Pakistan, then turn around, and condone communalism w/o let.