London’s Hour of Reckoning

rsridhar #460 I hope you are enjoying the mangoes then, while in India on vacation, in-between your chowk interacts. :-)

you write ``I think India treats its minorities much better than most countries.`` I think you are being too smug here. In other countries national leaders almost invariably seek to promote harmony between different communities in the country. In India, you national leaders like Advani have stoked trouble between communities by LEADING attacks on mosques (i.e. a place of worship of a minority community). You have some fundamental problems in India (just as we do in Pakistan, of course, with OUR religious chauvinists). Instead of trying to hide this, you should be speaking out against it. Of course there are many good things in India (as there are in Pakistan) as well. So, there is no doubt in my mind that over time this rot will disappear in India (as it will in Pakistan). But till then, let us not pretend it does not exist.

Ajeya #461 I see you misrepesenting my view: ``People like tahmed32 have a name for the untold miseries inflicted on Hindus by Muslims – “percieved injustices”. ``

I never used that phrase, and in fact it is the opposite of what I have always said on chowk: I have many times specifically condemned things like the destruction of the somnath temple and the 17 raids on India by Ghazni and called these actions that are commonly thought to be undertaken on behalf of islam to be in fact a violation of islam. Just as I have frequently spoken up for the attacks on hindus and sikhs in what is now Pakistan in 1947.

I am merely correcting you here, and am not interested in starting a discussion with you. So dont bother to reply - unless you can cut and paste anything I have ever written to disprove my point above that you are a liar.

#459 by hindvi

[I cant help it if your comprehension skills are weak, it is you who wants to know about Legal discriminations among Hindus so bring me their constitutions and i will, if not go read Indian history, as you should considering how half baked your internet skimmed ideas are and how vocal you are, I have pointed out to you where you can do so. To begin with read the the hindu practice and laws against Melacchas, check out some of the travelogues of ancient and medieval India. Then read up on hindu discriminatory laws against the Shudra and other lower Caste minority, who were not considered Hindus by any of the upper castes and thus were not allowed entry in Temples.

when you do so then come back.]


I see. So you are from the “backward castes”. Hmm…

This is the problem with chowk. It is difficult to tell who is who.

You obviously have unresolved issues about the way the upper castes treated the lower castes over the ages. And you want to derive some satisfaction by bashing Hinduism on this forum.

Well I think you are not being logical about this. Granted, that in many parts of India this upper caste - lower caste thing is still going on. But you know as well as I do, that it is decreasingly so. And it is not at all like the unresolved issues that Hindus have with Muslims. In the case of the mistreatment of Hindus by Muslims, there never has been ANY acknowledgement of past wrongs, rather, terrorists are terrorizing Hindus in their own homeland in Kashmir as we speak. People like tahmed32 have a name for the untold miseries inflicted on Hindus by Muslims – “percieved injustices”. In contrast, MANY upper caste hindus for MANY years have led MANY movements against the caste-based ills in our society. After India became independent, Dr. Ambetkar was invited to lead the writing of the constitution. There are a million affirmative-action programs. Affirmative action programs have gone completely overboard (in my opinion) trying to win votes for the politicians. I hear that today, in Tamil Nadu, if you are an upper-caste hindu, your son or daughter has to often leave the state to get an education in college. So Hindu society has been trying, at least, for more than 50 years.

And as far as Hinduism as a religion is concerned, bash it all you want. I really don’t care. As I have mentioned before, Hindu religion, not being an organized religion, means many things to many people. There’s a huge amount of region-based social traditions, superstitions and prejudices, as well as some pretty profound and well-thought out philosphy. For me, Hinduism means its philosophy, and I happen to belong to the Hindu culture. If you want to bash the philosophy, I would expect you to produce some arguments. If you don’t, bash away anyway. Get some satisfaction. And if you want to bash Hindu culture, well, I think you are wasting your time. Because lots of corrective measures have been taken over the years, and are still being taken.

One thing I should mention here. This is something I`ve seen Harimau mentioning many times. Don’t blame EVERYTHING on the upper castes. The upper castes did not prevent you from developing your own mathematics and astronomy. You have to take some of the blame for that.

And get a life. Don’t keep shouting at a society that has acknowledged over many years the caste-based injustices, and has gone overboard trying to address them.

And if that upper-caste father-in-law-to-be doesn’t want to give you his daughter’s hand in marriage, pay him back in his own coin.

Retaliate.

Don’t let his son marry your sister either.

Ciao (Did I actually say that? Omigosh!)

re: tahmed`s post
``...as far as india is concerned, you dont even have to look too far to see the rot that pervades your indian society: look at the insults to a minority religion by hindu chowkies on chowk, and then tell me about proper treatment of minorities...``
I do not see any rot in Indian society. I am on a vacation to India. Among the many channels that are available is something called a Q TV, which is an Islamic channel. I see at least 2 more channels propogating christianity and a channel for sikhs. Now, which other country would have so many channels dedicated to minorities.
I think India treats its minorities much better than most countries. Except muslims, rest have all prospered and i see that clearly during my travel. Muslims in south too look prosperous and well integrated. It is the muslims of North who are unable to integrate.
Sridhar

``So in your opinion the Marathas, sikhs, rajputs never ruled.]


Yes, Marathas, Sikhs and Rajputs did rule. Before the Muslims came, almost all of India was Hindu. After the Muslims came, most of India was Muslim-ruled.

Why don`t you give me examples where under the Marathas, Sikhs and Rajputs, there was LEGAL discrimination (that`s what you are talking about, right?). ``

I cant help it if your comprehension skills are weak, it is you who wants to know about Legal discriminations among Hindus so bring me their constitutions and i will, if not go read Indian history, as you should considering how half baked your internet skimmed ideas are and how vocal you are, I have pointed out to you where you can do so. To begin with read the the hindu practice and laws against Melacchas, check out some of the travelogues of ancient and medieval India. Then read up on hindu discriminatory laws against the Shudra and other lower Caste minority, who were not considered Hindus by any of the upper castes and thus were not allowed entry in Temples.

when you do so then come back.

Ciao

Where were we? London?

How about this?

Pakistan says UK is terrorist breeding ground
By Jean Eaglesham and Jimmy Burns in London and Vicky Burnett in Islamabad
Published: July 17 2005 21:07 | Last updated: July 17 2005 21:07

Pakistan has accused Britain of being a “breeding ground for terrorists”, in a diplomatic clash about the root causes of the July 7 attacks on London that could hinder a co-ordinated international response.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/18561970-f6fe-11d9-aeff-00000e2511c8.html

Re: #456 by tahmed32

[That is the kind of objectivity and intellectual honesty that can actually get us somewhere.]

``Intellectual honesty``!!!

You wouldn`t recognize intellectual honesty if it hit you between the eyeballs.

Wow. Quite a discussion continuing.

Dost Mittar: No sir, you have not misrepresented my views. Thanks for summarizing them. Where we differ is of course the degree to which you and I believe my views reflect the basic message of Islam: You think I am looking at selected passages in the Quran, whereas I think I am taking a holistic view, that things I have often stressed on chowk (e.g. that there is no place for a priesthood in Islam, that religion is a personal matter between the individual and God and no one else`s business, respect for all faiths) are ALSO STRESSED in the Quran.

hindvi: Loved your responses to PewResearch. That is the kind of objectivity and intellectual honesty that can actually get us somewhere.

OK. Gotta run - sorry I couldnt get back to you PewResearch - but I think we are going round in circles now. I suggest you take an objective look at what I am saying in my last post to you.

``hindu, muslim, sikh, esaaii - in sub ko meraa salaam``. :-)

Re: #452 by hindvi

[you bring me their writen constitutions and i will show it to u. ]


Whose written constitutions?

What the heck are you talking about?




#453 by hindvi

[By The way I am not here to ``To inform and correct.`` If you are in the west you can easily obtain from the closest university the compiled readings for any of the period you are interested in i.e. Subcontinental History, Islamic Civilsation, Medieval world History, etc. If you cant then you can easily get the reading list off the net and check out the books from the closest Public library. Since you have quite strong and forcful views I reccomend you make some effort and atleast check whether they tally with actual historical practice. ]


Since you are the one making accusations about Hindus, you should at least say who did what to whom and where.

THEN I`ll make ``some effort``.

So let me ask again:

What the hell are you talking about?

Tally WHAT with actual historic practice?

Stop making vague accusations, and tell us exactly what you are talking about.

tahmed32:

Re.#442

Sorry, if I unintentionally misrepresented you.

By The way I am not here to ``To inform and correct.`` If you are in the west you can easily obtain from the closest university the compiled readings for any of the period you are interested in i.e. Subcontinental History, Islamic Civilsation, Medieval world History, etc. If you cant then you can easily get the reading list off the net and check out the books from the closest Public library. Since you have quite strong and forcful views I reccomend you make some effort and atleast check whether they tally with actual historical practice.

you bring me their writen constitutions and i will show it to u.

Re: #450 by hindvi

[So in your opinion the Marathas, sikhs, rajputs never ruled.]


Yes, Marathas, Sikhs and Rajputs did rule. Before the Muslims came, almost all of India was Hindu. After the Muslims came, most of India was Muslim-ruled.

Why don`t you give me examples where under the Marathas, Sikhs and Rajputs, there was LEGAL discrimination (that`s what you are talking about, right?).


[You sem to be quite vocal about india but poorly informed of its history.]


Well, that`s where you come in. To inform and correct.

So in your opinion the Marathas, sikhs, rajputs never ruled. You sem to be quite vocal about india but poorly informed of its history.

#448 by hindvi

[the question was about legal status not actual practice, in legal status all citizens of secular polities are equal and of religous polities are not]

Well, if we are talking about legal status, for the past thousand years we have been ruled by first the Muslims and then the British. And after that, when India became independent with a Hindu majority, it became a secular country.

So when did Hindus legally NOT GIVE equal treatment to the religious minorities?

I’m not sure I understand.


[..but if you are looking at Muslim majority polities there are many examples where the legal status of minorities are the same as that of majorities as i have pointed out below.]

I’ll comment on this after we have cleared the previous point.