Is Secular India really Secular and Islamic Pakistan really Islamic?

[Is Secular India really Secular and Islamic Pakistan really Islamic?]

Gawd! Of course not! Can anything be more obvious?

Islamic Pakistan is really secular, and Secular India is really non-secular.

Mamoon has titled his article as a question. I tried searching for any proofs of ``secular Pakistan`` i.e. some evidence that non-Islamic Pakistan is still alive and vibrant. Land-mass that consitutes Pakistan was once center of buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism. Till 1947 there were large minority population in all major cities. They must have left behind significant number of temples and religious sites. Where are they? Search of books and internet results in very few such sites, that too in dilapidated states...

Question to author is - If akistan is not really Islamic, what happened to those sites?

Hindvi...governments may come and go...but one thing is sure and definite. The hindooo kufrs have finally got used to freedom and to the fact that they are the masters of their own destiny. Hindus have never been prouder of themselves , never more secure in their faith. For 1000 years they were enslaved - first by the muslim barbarians and then by the British (who were benign in comparison).....but 60 years of freedom has numbed the pain. But hindus have not forgotten. You thought one Gujarat was painful ? You haven`t seen nothing yet. And today the entire civilised world is against you people. Its a golden period , and I guarantee you that in my lifetime , you people will be wiped out ...attacked from all sides , from US , from India , from Israel and even from Europe. You dont stand a chance. The days of Muhammad`s evil cult are numbered.

Hindvi..you say `` Muslims are the `lowest castes` in India ``

Yes , such a tragedy...

Why , sir , have things come to such a pass ? After all , muslims used to rule India didn`t they? Looting , killing , raping idol worshipping polytheist hindooos at leisure..for over 600 years....breaking temples , destroyin everything hindoos held sacred , pouring insult upon injury by building mosques and tombs over supposed birth places of hindooo kufr gods.......

hindvi:

The Indian history that was taught to us was not written by hindutva people but by British historians. The whitewashing was done by the Marxists after they came to power. They decried orientalists a la Edward Said when it suited them, but they had no problem swallowing orientalist`s theory of the Aryan invasion; incidentally, it was also fully accepted by Tilak, the original hindu nationalist. They sanitized the history written by native chroniclers on the basis that they were not factual but written by courteurs to please their rulers, ignoring that if this is what was praiseworthy, it was the sign of a good muslim king. I was trained in economics and do accept that commercial interests of kings did play a role in shaping history. Where I depart from Marxists is that the entire history is not determined by class struggles; individual rulers, prophets and religious ideologies and philosophies, too, played a role in shaping history. For instance, it would be futile to argue that caste-rules or the buddhist emphasis on non-violence did not play a role in the repeated defeats of Indians at the hands of the foreigners; or the Islamic praise of but-shikani had no role to play in the destruction of hindu/jain/buddhist temples or that the emergence of Sikhism did not play a role in shaping the history of Punjab.

One could say the same thing about the hindutva fanatics who tried to rewrite entire history as a result of hindu-muslim conflict and confrontation out of which nothing good came. I agree with you however that, based on my limited reading of articles by both types of historians, Marxist historians show a much higher standard of academic scholarship than the hindutva historians. Possible exceptions could be Arun Shourie and, perhaps, V.S. Naipaul neither of whom is a historian by training.

Re: # 72

There are many american univ. which are Left leaning especially on the West coast. Havard was also cited as one when its President came under fire for his statement on womens innate inability to excel in science and maths.

Also, it doesn`t matter much if they are given positions in a higher centre of learning if their credibility is lost in their own backyard.

``it is ironical that right wing indians on chowk hate the one thing that most distinguishes them from the pakistanis where conservative religous, pretorian and feudal forces crushed their indigenous leftists, with a few exceptions like Tariq Ali etc.``

I don`t think any one in india is crying over the dying marxist system in pakistan (other than the commies). marxism is a evil, but islam (if not controlled) is even more fanatic and dangerous.

Saj1981#77:

First of all, let me say that I am quite impressed by your maturity at such a young age. You are a welcome addition to chowk.

``Its key coalition partners and ideological base are precisely of the super nationalist and right wing fanatic type that was slowly but surely eroding India`s claim to be a secular democracy at the turn of this century.``

I quite agree with your calling them super nationalist and right wing fanatic. But this does not make them religious party; it may make them a dangerous party but not religious. Gandhi`s Congress was more religious as it started with a hindu prayer. To be a religious party, it has to have a goal of replacing India`s secular constitution with some religious doctrine, which it does not. As far as I know, the BJP does not want to change India`s secular constitution, does not want to bring back the caste system, does not want to bring back the Hindu practice of polygamy, or to remove daughters` rights to inherit property - all these things were part of the Hindu laws as they were practised until a generation or two ago. One could say that it is anti-muslim and pro-hindu, which is why I call it a communal party.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

the senten below

``it is ironical that right wing indians on chowk hate the one thing that most distinguishes them from the pakistanis who crushed their own leftists in favour of conservative religous, pretorian and feudal forces.``

should read

it is ironical that right wing indians on chowk hate the one thing that most distinguishes them from the pakistanis where conservative religous, pretorian and feudal forces crushed their indigenous leftists, with a few exceptions like Tariq Ali etc.

I didnt mean the common pakistanis crushed their leftist intellectuals.

The reason the above article breaks down infact is due to the presence of leftist historians in India. That is why Indian historical writing never emphasised temple breaking, where as in Pakistani history books and school text books hindu oppresion is taught. it is from the leftist historians, (and here I include Nehru, who anybody who has read Discovery of India would know was no historical dunce) that a composite indian identity was shaped.

it is ironical that right wing indians on chowk hate the one thing that most distinguishes them from the pakistanis who crushed their own leftists in favour of conservative religous, pretorian and feudal forces.

``The factors you mention about the dalit participation in Gujarat riots - looting, upper caste provocation, police - are present all over India. Why Gujarat? ``

It is present allover thats why dalits are now participating in riots all over, especially since the rise of hindutva propoganda in the late 80s, early 90s.

``Were these people ``traditional`` dalits or tribals who had lived in relative isolation and had not felt the worst of the caste opression? ``

Dalits and tribals should nt be mixed because the tribals` participation is a new new thing.

``Did it give them a sense of empowerment they did not have earlier?``

this is a point I had missed and is very important for both dalits and tribals. Muslims are in this sense, now the lowest caste.

I forgot to mention Amartya Sen is also a professor of philosophy (he has two Phds), interestingly not of Indian philosophy but of Moral Philosophy and here too his concerns are primarily leftist ones of social Justice.

Dost Mittar class strait jacket is a very superficial reading of the marxist view of history. Marx`s economic theories were flawed but the broader tools of Marx`s historical analysis are today accepted by most mainstream historians i.e. that broad historical trends are based on the evolution of the economic base and that individuals are less important than broader socio - economic forces and ideology. It is because of this that leftist historians like Romila thapar are appointed to chairs at the temple of capitalism otherwise known as the US Congressional Library. Indian Leftist historians are also the most respected historians in the US because of innovative historians like gyanndra pandey (a stalwart of the sub altern studies school who is faculty at a conservative school: Johns Hopkins), Sugato Bose at Harvard and and Tufts, Mushirul hasan who has often been offered positions in the US, Irfan habib, Bipin Chandra etc. Amartya Sen is very much a leftist, a brief perusal of his resume will reveal that he has always been exposing chinks in neo classical economics , putting social Choice theory on sound footing, studying famines and finding soluitions for them, investigating extent of sexual inequality, finding impact of discrimination against the girl child and effects of female empowerment on growth, ways and means of providing health care and education to the lowest quintiles and its impact on economic growth, methods of measuring socio economic well being from which emerged the HDI (in conjunction with Mehboob Ul Haq).

I recall your dismay at school history not detailing temple breaking by central asian invaders etc. I found that an odd place for detailing and an arbitrary date to start documenting temple breaking.

Dost Mittar there is no binary equivalence between marxist historians and hindutva ones, not a single hindutva hiostorian holds a faculty position at any reputed western university.

hindvi:

Like Indian history, Sen, too, cannot be fixed into a neat category. I am against all white-washing of history, whether by Marxist historians who try to fit Indian history into their class straitjacket or by hindutva historians who want to fit history into their own narrow straitjacket.
The factors you mention about the dalit participation in Gujarat riots - looting, upper caste provocation, police - are present all over India. Why Gujarat? Were these people ``traditional`` dalits or tribals who had lived in relative isolation and had not felt the worst of the caste opression? Did it give them a sense of empowerment they did not have earlier? (these are just questions, not answers)

dost-mittar

dalits are taking part due to propoganda from the usual suspects, economic opportunity (loot) and some deliberate planning by upper caste politicians and police.

I was initially surprised by your admiration for historical writing by sen, since i remember u criticising leftist historians for having white washed indian history, school syllabi etc. but then i read further and realised he goes onto praise certain admirable aspects of ancient hindu society.

hindvi#68:

I agree with you. It was like the English class system where the butler was the staunchest defender of the existing order which he could use to keep those under him in line.

The role of dalits in Gujarat riots against Muslims is more intriguing and I have not read any good analysis of the reasons behind it. I wonder if there is some local factors behind this phenomenon, such as some rivalries between dalits and ex-dalit converts.