Filtered Posts
Basant in Lahore
Call to ban ``HINDU`` Basant
I see no reason for celebrating Basant. Is Basant one of our religious festivals or is it part of our culture?
Basant is a festival of a non-Muslim community and celebrating it in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan will be nothing but an indication that our Islamic values are weakening.
The question is, are we as a nation in a position to waste a huge amount of money such an occasion?
SAMIR AMIN SHIWANI
Karachi
Posted by
sarwar
Feb 16, 2003 05:28 pm
Call to ban ``HINDU`` Basant
I see no reason for celebrating Basant. Is Basant one of our religious festivals or is it part of our culture?
Basant is a festival of a non-Muslim community and celebrating it in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan will be nothing but an indication that our Islamic values are weakening.
The question is, are we as a nation in a position to waste a huge amount of money such an occasion?
SAMIR AMIN SHIWANI
Karachi
Saira Votes for Peace
PART 1.
By O.P. Gupta
Over centuries, the percentage of Hindus in the world and even in India has been declining. The share of Hindus in total population of India was 84.98 percent in the 1951 census, 82.7 percent in 1971, 82.6 percent in 1981 and 82.41 percent in 1991.
In the 2001 census report (table 24), it has been further revised downwards to 82 per cent in 1991 census.
This decline warrants serious introspection and reappraisal of our socio-religious norms. Whereas Islamic and Christian priests have been working overtime to seek new converts so as to increase their demographic weight, bulk of Hindu priests unaware of Rigvedic norms but, armed with Manusmriti have been functioning in such manner over last one thousand that years reduces population of Hindus by making it difficult for a sizeable chunk of Hindus (now called ST/SC/Dalits) to let them remain Hindus with honour and dignity; and, by not seeking new converts to Hinduism.
Concepts like castes by birth, upper/lower castes, untouchables and dalits are expressly prohibited by Rigveda, Ramayana and Shrimad Bhagwat Gita.
Protagonists of castes by birth cite Purus-Sukta (X.90.12) of Rigveda and slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita. This claim is totally knocked down by other richas of Rigveda, other slokas of Gita and examples set by Lord Rama.
There is no birth based caste in Rigveda is evident from simple fact that names of none of Rigvedic rishis carry any present day caste titles like Pandit, Sharma, Tripathi, Chaturvedi, Trivedi, Singh, Gupta and Namboodari.
Vedas, Valmiki Ramayan and Gita are three and only three supreme religious scriptures of Hindus. Rigveda has revelations to 414 rishis. Rigveda was composed around 1500 BC but other school believes it to be older than 5000 BC.
Rigveda does not mention cotton whereas the oldest cotton seeds found in Afghanistan are carbon dated to 5000 BC.
All others (Brahmanas, Upnishads, Puranas, Sutras, Smrities) are just commentaries, stories mixed with historical accounts and poets’ imaginations.
All writings in Sanskrit are not religious scriptures. Therefore, these latter compositions must yield to supremacy of Vedas. It is not a new assertion as these themselves acknowledge supremacy of Vedas. For example, Manusmriti vide Sloka (II.6), states that Vedas are the primary/first source of authority. So, it is logical that all such slokas of Manusmriti which are violative of Veda stand rejected.
Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee in his book “Hindu Law and the Constitution” says that by a rule of interpretation, if the shruti (Vedas) and the smriti differ on any point, the former is to prevail.
Ramayana and Mahabharata were composed after Vedas. Shrimad Bhagwat Gita is a part of Mahabharata. It is believed that Manusmriti was composed during Kushan period, about 100 years after Chankya/Kautilya. Arthur A. Macdonnel in his book “A History of Sanskrit Literature” (1899 AD) estimates that Manusmriti in its present form was composed near about 200 AD.
In his book, Macdonnel warns that the smritis are not on the same footings as law books of other nations as these are works of private individuals (Brahmins); these were written by Brahimins for benefit of Brahinins whose caste pretentions these books consequently exaggerate.
None of these books from Manusmriti onwards were approved by any Dharam Sansad (religious congregation). Macdonnel advises to check statements/claims made in smrities by outside sources.
Text of Manusmriti has been tampered with was acknowledged by Sir William Jones, an employee of the East India Company who introduced it as the Law book of Hindus in British Indian Courts.
As devil is there in the details, let us look at English translations of (X.90.11 & 12). HH Wilson translates “When they immolated Purusa, into how many portions did they divide him? What was his mouth called, what his arms, what his thighs, what were his feet called? His mouth became the Brahmana, his arms became the Rajnya, his thighs became the Vaishya, and the Sudra was born from his feet.” Ralph T.H. Griffith translates: “When they divided Purusa how many portions did they make? What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?” The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms Rajnya was made. His thighs became Vaishya, from his feet the Sudra was produced.”
This context, this background that, division of body of Purusa into four parts was done to kill/ immolate/sacrifice the Purusa has been totally suppressed in Manusmriti.
In sloka (I.31), Manusmriti wrongly claims, that for growth of people (lokanbridhi) Brahma created Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra from mouth, arms, thighs and feet. With a view to create hereditary monopoly on easy money of dakshina, greedy priests centuries after Vedas concocted that as Brahman was born from mouth of Purusa, he was the superior most and as Sudra was born from feet which is impure part of body he was impure and the inferior most.
Manusmriti (5/132) states that organs above nabhi are sacred (pavitra) and those below are impure (apivatra). There is no sanction for such a hypothesis in Rigveda.
What Rishi Narain, composer of (X.90) was revealed is a very simple common sense, that even the most powerful man like Purusa can be immolated/destroyed if his mouth, arms, thighs and feet are separated.
If we kill a person what do we do? We cut his body into pieces. This is what followers of Manusmriti have been doing over centuries - destroying/immolating Hinduism from within by dividing/separating Hindus among different castes by birth, at fratricidal war with each other, thus, reducing Hindu population.
By throwing Sudras out of villages, followers of Manu amputated feet of Hinduism, thus, made Hinduism crippled. Will followers of Manusmriti agree to get their own feet amputated on the same logic that legs are impure parts of their bodies?
Another interpretation of (X.90.11 & 12) is creative i.e. emergence of a powerful (virat) man from Yajna. Acharya Shri Ram Sharma of Bareilly translates (in Hindi) “Virat purus kitne prakaroo se utpanna huvey. Unka mukh Brahman, bhuja kshatriye, janghaye vaishya aur charan sudra huye.”
Acharya translates these on lines of creation not immolation, so, body of Purus is not divided into four limbs.
By common sense, a virat Purus is one who is healthy and one is healthy only if his mouth, arms, thighs and feet are joined together and work in perfect harmony with each other.
Whenever this harmony among different parts of body is disturbed/destroyed, he becomes paralysed and sick. So, what Rishi Narain is saying is that a Society will emerge as the most powerful Society like the Virat Purus only if its intelligentia (educated people i.e. Brahmans), Government (Rajnya), business community (Vaishya) and professionals & workers (Sudra) are joined together and work in as perfect harmony with each other as mouth, arms, thighs and feet of any healthy person work.
These two richas, thus, emphasise total equality, perfect unity & complementarity of all the four classes of people to make a Society powerful.
In a healthy person, mouth does not claim to be superior to legs, arms do not claim any superiority over legs and arms do not function independently of head (Parkinsons’s disease), as each part of a body is composed of identically same materials and is functionally dependent upon each other.
No part of body is inferior or superior to other part of body. Each dependent on the other, each complementary to the other. Thus, Purus Sukta commands harmony, unity and equality i.e. none of the four classes is inferior or superior to other and each is dependent on the other for its healthy survival.
But, just the opposite interpretation was created by greedy priests and British Courts to divide and rule.
Those who say that as Sudra represent feet of Virat Purus, and, as feet is impure so Sudras are impure should know that richa (X.90.14) says that earth was born from same feet of Purusa. So, based on (X.90.14) Sudras will be justified to claim the entire earth as exclusively theirs.
There is no stipulation of high or low by birth in Rigveda. Many rishis of Rigveda under current Manusmriti definition were not Brahmins. There are at least ten Rigvedic richas showing that profession was not hereditary.
In richas (V.23.1) and (V.23.2) Rishi Dyumna prays to Agni “Bestow Agni, upon Dyumna, a son, overcoming foes by his prowess; one who may with glory subdue all men in battle” (HH Wilson).
In (IX.112.3) another rishi says “I am the singer, papa is the physician.” So, father of a Rigvedic rishi is a physician but in Manusmriti a physician is a sudra.
HH Wilson translates (X.125.5) “I verily of myself declare this which is approved by both gods and men; whosoever I will, I render him formidable, I make him a Brahma, a rishi or a sage.” This richa appears in Atharveda (IV.30.03) also.
So in Rigveda profession is not hereditary but by training. In (X.98.7) Devapi, is functioning as a purohit to his own brother King Shantanu.
Some assert that Arayns were/are fair complexioned people and sudras are dark skinned. They also claim that four varnas were based on colours of skin. This is not true as Lord Rama and Lord Krishna are always depicted in coloured pictures as dark complexioned (shyama varna). Rishi Kanva who richly contributed to Rigveda was himself a dark skinned person vide RV (X.31.11).
Higher caste/lower caste and untouchability are in direct contradiction to 12 other richas of Vedas viz. RV (VIII.93.13), RV (X.191), Atharveda III.30 and VII.54 (or VII.52) and Yujurveda (26.02) and (36.18). Unity in diversity is famous Indian motto.
Cows of different colours like black, red and spotted ones give white milk (RV VIII.93.13) is a metaphor used in Vedas for diversity yielding to unity.
HH Wilson translates (X.191.2): “Meet together, talk together, let your minds apprehend alike: in like manner as the ancient gods concurring accepted their portion of the sacrifice.” RV (X.191.3) “Common be the prayer of these (assembled worshippers), common be the acquirement, common the purpose, associated be the desire. I repeat for you a common prayer, I offer for you a common oblation.” RV (X.191.4) “Common (worshippers), be your intention; common be (the wishes of) your heart; common be your thoughts, so that there may be thorough union among you.”
W.D. Whitney & K.L. Joshi translate Atharveda (III.30.1) “like-heartedness, like mindedness, non-hostility do I make for you; do you show affection the one towards the other, as the inviolable (cow) towards her calf when born.” (III.30.5): “Having superior intentful, be you not divided, accomplishing together, moving on with joint labour come hither speaking what is agreeable one to another, I make you united, like minded.” (III.30.6): “Your drinking saloon be the same, in common your share of food, in the same harness do I join you together; worship you Agni united, like spokes about a navel.” (III.30.7): “Untied, like minded I make you, of one bunch, all of you, by (my conciliation; (be) like the gods defending amrita; late and early be well-willing yours.”
Supporters of casteism oftenly quote slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita to support four castes by birth. In sloka (IV.13) Lord Krishna says: “Chaturvarnyma mayaa sristam gunkarma vibhagsah” i.e. four orders of society created by Me according to their Guna (qualities/behaviour) and Karma (profession/work/efforts).
Lord Krishna does not say guna and karma of previous life. In (XVIII.41) Lord Krishna says “Brahmana Kshatriya visham sudranam cha paramtapa, karmani pravibhaktani svabhavaprabhavaigunaih.” It means people have been grouped into four classes according to their present life karma (profession/work) and svabhava (behaviour).
Had this division been based on birth, Lord Krishna would have naturally used “Janmani pravibhaktani” in (XVIII.41).
In (X.20) Lord Krishna says “ahamatama gudakesa sarvabhutaa sayasthitah” i.e. “Arjuna! I am the universal self seated in the hearts of all beings.” Here, Lord neither excludes sudra from “all beings” nor excludes Himself from being in hearts of sudra.
In (XVIII.61) Lord says “eshwarah sarvabhutaanaam hraddesearjuna tisthati” i.e. Arjuna! God abides in the heart of all living beings.” Again, sudras are not excluded.
In (XIV.4) Lord Krishna says “of all embodied beings Arjuna, prakrti or nature is the conceiving Mother, while I am the seed giving Father.” Thus, Lord Krishna says that he is as much Father of sudras as he is Father of any other Hindu.
In (XVI.18) Lord Krishna says: “Given over to egotism, brute force, arrogance, etc. they hate Me dwelling in their own bodies as well as those of others.”
Thus, Lord Krishna instructs that a Hindu must not hate bodies of others Hindus as He is there in bodies of all so Gita prohibits untouchability.
In (XVI.19) Lord curses Manu supporters: “These haters, sinful, cruel and vilest among men, I cast (them) again and again into demonical yonies (wombs).” In (XVI.20) Lord again curses Manu supporters: “Failing to reach Me, Arjuna, these stupid souls are born life after life in demoniac wombs (asura yoni) and then verily sink down to a still lower plane.” In (XVIII.71) and (V.18) Lord again instructs equality of all Hindus.
Shrimad Valmiki Ramayan (1.1.98 to 100) also says whosoever including sudra reads it will achieve greatness and get rid of all sins. Thus, Vedas, Ramayana and Gita confer authority on sudras to possess and read all these.
In Ramayan, Lord Rama has set following two lessons for all Hindus which we witness every year in Ramlilas but never follow in our practical lives.
Ravana was a grandson of risi Pulatsya. He was an expert on Vedas too. So, he was a Brahimin by birth under Manu definition as well as a Brahimin (educated) by qualification (veda-gyata) but he and most of his family members were killed by Lord Rama for their wrong doings. So, the first lesson of Ramayana is that everyone is equal before law.
Lord Rama visited Shabri, called her a mother (mata); ate food from her hands and washed feet of Nisadraj. Lord Rama lived for years among vanvasi (tribals). So the second lesson of Ramayana is that a true Rambhakta should never discriminate against SC/ST/Dalit Hindus, should never hesitate to visit and dine with them. Mahatma Gandhi always followed both these two lessons of Ramayana.
Thus, the central command of the 14 harmony richas and 10 profession not hereditary richas of Vedas is that all Hindus are totally equal by birth, of one bunch, share same water and food, worship together united in same temple, common are prayers, common purpose, common thoughts, united like spokes of a wheel, common oblation and friendly towards each others.
One becomes a warrior (Rajnya), Brahman (educated ones) or rishi, not by birth but by his efforts/training (karma) vide RV (X.125.5). No one is superior and no one is inferior by birth.
[The writer is the Ambassador of India to Finland and above are his personal views.]
Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism
Posted by
sarwar
Feb 5, 2003 12:18 pm
Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism PART 1.
By O.P. Gupta
Over centuries, the percentage of Hindus in the world and even in India has been declining. The share of Hindus in total population of India was 84.98 percent in the 1951 census, 82.7 percent in 1971, 82.6 percent in 1981 and 82.41 percent in 1991.
In the 2001 census report (table 24), it has been further revised downwards to 82 per cent in 1991 census.
This decline warrants serious introspection and reappraisal of our socio-religious norms. Whereas Islamic and Christian priests have been working overtime to seek new converts so as to increase their demographic weight, bulk of Hindu priests unaware of Rigvedic norms but, armed with Manusmriti have been functioning in such manner over last one thousand that years reduces population of Hindus by making it difficult for a sizeable chunk of Hindus (now called ST/SC/Dalits) to let them remain Hindus with honour and dignity; and, by not seeking new converts to Hinduism.
Concepts like castes by birth, upper/lower castes, untouchables and dalits are expressly prohibited by Rigveda, Ramayana and Shrimad Bhagwat Gita.
Protagonists of castes by birth cite Purus-Sukta (X.90.12) of Rigveda and slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita. This claim is totally knocked down by other richas of Rigveda, other slokas of Gita and examples set by Lord Rama.
There is no birth based caste in Rigveda is evident from simple fact that names of none of Rigvedic rishis carry any present day caste titles like Pandit, Sharma, Tripathi, Chaturvedi, Trivedi, Singh, Gupta and Namboodari.
Vedas, Valmiki Ramayan and Gita are three and only three supreme religious scriptures of Hindus. Rigveda has revelations to 414 rishis. Rigveda was composed around 1500 BC but other school believes it to be older than 5000 BC.
Rigveda does not mention cotton whereas the oldest cotton seeds found in Afghanistan are carbon dated to 5000 BC.
All others (Brahmanas, Upnishads, Puranas, Sutras, Smrities) are just commentaries, stories mixed with historical accounts and poets’ imaginations.
All writings in Sanskrit are not religious scriptures. Therefore, these latter compositions must yield to supremacy of Vedas. It is not a new assertion as these themselves acknowledge supremacy of Vedas. For example, Manusmriti vide Sloka (II.6), states that Vedas are the primary/first source of authority. So, it is logical that all such slokas of Manusmriti which are violative of Veda stand rejected.
Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee in his book “Hindu Law and the Constitution” says that by a rule of interpretation, if the shruti (Vedas) and the smriti differ on any point, the former is to prevail.
Ramayana and Mahabharata were composed after Vedas. Shrimad Bhagwat Gita is a part of Mahabharata. It is believed that Manusmriti was composed during Kushan period, about 100 years after Chankya/Kautilya. Arthur A. Macdonnel in his book “A History of Sanskrit Literature” (1899 AD) estimates that Manusmriti in its present form was composed near about 200 AD.
In his book, Macdonnel warns that the smritis are not on the same footings as law books of other nations as these are works of private individuals (Brahmins); these were written by Brahimins for benefit of Brahinins whose caste pretentions these books consequently exaggerate.
None of these books from Manusmriti onwards were approved by any Dharam Sansad (religious congregation). Macdonnel advises to check statements/claims made in smrities by outside sources.
Text of Manusmriti has been tampered with was acknowledged by Sir William Jones, an employee of the East India Company who introduced it as the Law book of Hindus in British Indian Courts.
As devil is there in the details, let us look at English translations of (X.90.11 & 12). HH Wilson translates “When they immolated Purusa, into how many portions did they divide him? What was his mouth called, what his arms, what his thighs, what were his feet called? His mouth became the Brahmana, his arms became the Rajnya, his thighs became the Vaishya, and the Sudra was born from his feet.” Ralph T.H. Griffith translates: “When they divided Purusa how many portions did they make? What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?” The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms Rajnya was made. His thighs became Vaishya, from his feet the Sudra was produced.”
This context, this background that, division of body of Purusa into four parts was done to kill/ immolate/sacrifice the Purusa has been totally suppressed in Manusmriti.
In sloka (I.31), Manusmriti wrongly claims, that for growth of people (lokanbridhi) Brahma created Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra from mouth, arms, thighs and feet. With a view to create hereditary monopoly on easy money of dakshina, greedy priests centuries after Vedas concocted that as Brahman was born from mouth of Purusa, he was the superior most and as Sudra was born from feet which is impure part of body he was impure and the inferior most.
Manusmriti (5/132) states that organs above nabhi are sacred (pavitra) and those below are impure (apivatra). There is no sanction for such a hypothesis in Rigveda.
What Rishi Narain, composer of (X.90) was revealed is a very simple common sense, that even the most powerful man like Purusa can be immolated/destroyed if his mouth, arms, thighs and feet are separated.
If we kill a person what do we do? We cut his body into pieces. This is what followers of Manusmriti have been doing over centuries - destroying/immolating Hinduism from within by dividing/separating Hindus among different castes by birth, at fratricidal war with each other, thus, reducing Hindu population.
By throwing Sudras out of villages, followers of Manu amputated feet of Hinduism, thus, made Hinduism crippled. Will followers of Manusmriti agree to get their own feet amputated on the same logic that legs are impure parts of their bodies?
Another interpretation of (X.90.11 & 12) is creative i.e. emergence of a powerful (virat) man from Yajna. Acharya Shri Ram Sharma of Bareilly translates (in Hindi) “Virat purus kitne prakaroo se utpanna huvey. Unka mukh Brahman, bhuja kshatriye, janghaye vaishya aur charan sudra huye.”
Acharya translates these on lines of creation not immolation, so, body of Purus is not divided into four limbs.
By common sense, a virat Purus is one who is healthy and one is healthy only if his mouth, arms, thighs and feet are joined together and work in perfect harmony with each other.
Whenever this harmony among different parts of body is disturbed/destroyed, he becomes paralysed and sick. So, what Rishi Narain is saying is that a Society will emerge as the most powerful Society like the Virat Purus only if its intelligentia (educated people i.e. Brahmans), Government (Rajnya), business community (Vaishya) and professionals & workers (Sudra) are joined together and work in as perfect harmony with each other as mouth, arms, thighs and feet of any healthy person work.
These two richas, thus, emphasise total equality, perfect unity & complementarity of all the four classes of people to make a Society powerful.
In a healthy person, mouth does not claim to be superior to legs, arms do not claim any superiority over legs and arms do not function independently of head (Parkinsons’s disease), as each part of a body is composed of identically same materials and is functionally dependent upon each other.
No part of body is inferior or superior to other part of body. Each dependent on the other, each complementary to the other. Thus, Purus Sukta commands harmony, unity and equality i.e. none of the four classes is inferior or superior to other and each is dependent on the other for its healthy survival.
But, just the opposite interpretation was created by greedy priests and British Courts to divide and rule.
Those who say that as Sudra represent feet of Virat Purus, and, as feet is impure so Sudras are impure should know that richa (X.90.14) says that earth was born from same feet of Purusa. So, based on (X.90.14) Sudras will be justified to claim the entire earth as exclusively theirs.
There is no stipulation of high or low by birth in Rigveda. Many rishis of Rigveda under current Manusmriti definition were not Brahmins. There are at least ten Rigvedic richas showing that profession was not hereditary.
In richas (V.23.1) and (V.23.2) Rishi Dyumna prays to Agni “Bestow Agni, upon Dyumna, a son, overcoming foes by his prowess; one who may with glory subdue all men in battle” (HH Wilson).
In (IX.112.3) another rishi says “I am the singer, papa is the physician.” So, father of a Rigvedic rishi is a physician but in Manusmriti a physician is a sudra.
HH Wilson translates (X.125.5) “I verily of myself declare this which is approved by both gods and men; whosoever I will, I render him formidable, I make him a Brahma, a rishi or a sage.” This richa appears in Atharveda (IV.30.03) also.
So in Rigveda profession is not hereditary but by training. In (X.98.7) Devapi, is functioning as a purohit to his own brother King Shantanu.
Some assert that Arayns were/are fair complexioned people and sudras are dark skinned. They also claim that four varnas were based on colours of skin. This is not true as Lord Rama and Lord Krishna are always depicted in coloured pictures as dark complexioned (shyama varna). Rishi Kanva who richly contributed to Rigveda was himself a dark skinned person vide RV (X.31.11).
Higher caste/lower caste and untouchability are in direct contradiction to 12 other richas of Vedas viz. RV (VIII.93.13), RV (X.191), Atharveda III.30 and VII.54 (or VII.52) and Yujurveda (26.02) and (36.18). Unity in diversity is famous Indian motto.
Cows of different colours like black, red and spotted ones give white milk (RV VIII.93.13) is a metaphor used in Vedas for diversity yielding to unity.
HH Wilson translates (X.191.2): “Meet together, talk together, let your minds apprehend alike: in like manner as the ancient gods concurring accepted their portion of the sacrifice.” RV (X.191.3) “Common be the prayer of these (assembled worshippers), common be the acquirement, common the purpose, associated be the desire. I repeat for you a common prayer, I offer for you a common oblation.” RV (X.191.4) “Common (worshippers), be your intention; common be (the wishes of) your heart; common be your thoughts, so that there may be thorough union among you.”
W.D. Whitney & K.L. Joshi translate Atharveda (III.30.1) “like-heartedness, like mindedness, non-hostility do I make for you; do you show affection the one towards the other, as the inviolable (cow) towards her calf when born.” (III.30.5): “Having superior intentful, be you not divided, accomplishing together, moving on with joint labour come hither speaking what is agreeable one to another, I make you united, like minded.” (III.30.6): “Your drinking saloon be the same, in common your share of food, in the same harness do I join you together; worship you Agni united, like spokes about a navel.” (III.30.7): “Untied, like minded I make you, of one bunch, all of you, by (my conciliation; (be) like the gods defending amrita; late and early be well-willing yours.”
Supporters of casteism oftenly quote slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita to support four castes by birth. In sloka (IV.13) Lord Krishna says: “Chaturvarnyma mayaa sristam gunkarma vibhagsah” i.e. four orders of society created by Me according to their Guna (qualities/behaviour) and Karma (profession/work/efforts).
Lord Krishna does not say guna and karma of previous life. In (XVIII.41) Lord Krishna says “Brahmana Kshatriya visham sudranam cha paramtapa, karmani pravibhaktani svabhavaprabhavaigunaih.” It means people have been grouped into four classes according to their present life karma (profession/work) and svabhava (behaviour).
Had this division been based on birth, Lord Krishna would have naturally used “Janmani pravibhaktani” in (XVIII.41).
In (X.20) Lord Krishna says “ahamatama gudakesa sarvabhutaa sayasthitah” i.e. “Arjuna! I am the universal self seated in the hearts of all beings.” Here, Lord neither excludes sudra from “all beings” nor excludes Himself from being in hearts of sudra.
In (XVIII.61) Lord says “eshwarah sarvabhutaanaam hraddesearjuna tisthati” i.e. Arjuna! God abides in the heart of all living beings.” Again, sudras are not excluded.
In (XIV.4) Lord Krishna says “of all embodied beings Arjuna, prakrti or nature is the conceiving Mother, while I am the seed giving Father.” Thus, Lord Krishna says that he is as much Father of sudras as he is Father of any other Hindu.
In (XVI.18) Lord Krishna says: “Given over to egotism, brute force, arrogance, etc. they hate Me dwelling in their own bodies as well as those of others.”
Thus, Lord Krishna instructs that a Hindu must not hate bodies of others Hindus as He is there in bodies of all so Gita prohibits untouchability.
In (XVI.19) Lord curses Manu supporters: “These haters, sinful, cruel and vilest among men, I cast (them) again and again into demonical yonies (wombs).” In (XVI.20) Lord again curses Manu supporters: “Failing to reach Me, Arjuna, these stupid souls are born life after life in demoniac wombs (asura yoni) and then verily sink down to a still lower plane.” In (XVIII.71) and (V.18) Lord again instructs equality of all Hindus.
Shrimad Valmiki Ramayan (1.1.98 to 100) also says whosoever including sudra reads it will achieve greatness and get rid of all sins. Thus, Vedas, Ramayana and Gita confer authority on sudras to possess and read all these.
In Ramayan, Lord Rama has set following two lessons for all Hindus which we witness every year in Ramlilas but never follow in our practical lives.
Ravana was a grandson of risi Pulatsya. He was an expert on Vedas too. So, he was a Brahimin by birth under Manu definition as well as a Brahimin (educated) by qualification (veda-gyata) but he and most of his family members were killed by Lord Rama for their wrong doings. So, the first lesson of Ramayana is that everyone is equal before law.
Lord Rama visited Shabri, called her a mother (mata); ate food from her hands and washed feet of Nisadraj. Lord Rama lived for years among vanvasi (tribals). So the second lesson of Ramayana is that a true Rambhakta should never discriminate against SC/ST/Dalit Hindus, should never hesitate to visit and dine with them. Mahatma Gandhi always followed both these two lessons of Ramayana.
Thus, the central command of the 14 harmony richas and 10 profession not hereditary richas of Vedas is that all Hindus are totally equal by birth, of one bunch, share same water and food, worship together united in same temple, common are prayers, common purpose, common thoughts, united like spokes of a wheel, common oblation and friendly towards each others.
One becomes a warrior (Rajnya), Brahman (educated ones) or rishi, not by birth but by his efforts/training (karma) vide RV (X.125.5). No one is superior and no one is inferior by birth.
[The writer is the Ambassador of India to Finland and above are his personal views.]
Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism
Columbia
His statement has been condemned by some moderate Muslims while a spokesman for Hindu temples said such statements would create rift between the communities here and the world over.
The mosque was recently raided by 150 police officers on the suspicion that it had become a meeting point for alleged terrorists. They had made a few arrests, seized a stun gun and some other material during the raid.
Hamza`s defiance has surprised the officials as he is already facing the likelihood of deportation on the suspicion that his marriage to an English woman was bigamous. She has now spoken and said her life with him was hell.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030203/ap_wo_en_po/eu_gen_britain_cleric_shuttle_1
Shuttle accident was God`s punishment, radical British Muslim says
Mon Feb 3, 9:41 AM ET
LONDON - A Muslim cleric notorious for his fiery anti-Western rhetoric said Monday that the loss of the space shuttle Columbia was ``God`s punishment`` against Americans, Israelis and Hindus.
A mainstream Muslim leader condemned the ``lunatic`` comments by Abu Hamza al-Masri.
Al-Masri said the shuttle`s mission was ``a trinity of evil against Islam`` because it carried Americans, Indian-born astronaut Kalpana Chawla and Ilan Ramon, the first Israeli in space.
Columbia disintegrated over Texas as it was preparing to land Saturday, killing the seven astronauts aboard.
``It is a punishment from God,`` said al-Masri, noting that part of the shuttle`s wreckage fell near the town of Palestine, Texas.
Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, leader of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, dismissed the comments as ``just another of his lunatic pronouncements.
``Most Muslims will see this as a tragedy,`` he said. ``They were very brave and courageous people.``
Al-Masri has been ordered to leave his pulpit at London`s Finsbury Park Mosque by Britain`s charity watchdog because of his ``extreme and political`` statements.
In the last few years the mosque has become a center of radical Islam. Officials say previous worshippers include ``shoe-bomber`` Richard Reid and extremists who plotted to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Paris.
Posted by
sarwar
Feb 3, 2003 11:07 am
The fundamentalist cleric Abu Hamza who has been preaching at Sainsbury Park has said that the Columbia shuttle was an evil trip and its crash would be seen by Muslims as a punishment by Allah.His statement has been condemned by some moderate Muslims while a spokesman for Hindu temples said such statements would create rift between the communities here and the world over.
The mosque was recently raided by 150 police officers on the suspicion that it had become a meeting point for alleged terrorists. They had made a few arrests, seized a stun gun and some other material during the raid.
Hamza`s defiance has surprised the officials as he is already facing the likelihood of deportation on the suspicion that his marriage to an English woman was bigamous. She has now spoken and said her life with him was hell.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030203/ap_wo_en_po/eu_gen_britain_cleric_shuttle_1
Shuttle accident was God`s punishment, radical British Muslim says
Mon Feb 3, 9:41 AM ET
LONDON - A Muslim cleric notorious for his fiery anti-Western rhetoric said Monday that the loss of the space shuttle Columbia was ``God`s punishment`` against Americans, Israelis and Hindus.
A mainstream Muslim leader condemned the ``lunatic`` comments by Abu Hamza al-Masri.
Al-Masri said the shuttle`s mission was ``a trinity of evil against Islam`` because it carried Americans, Indian-born astronaut Kalpana Chawla and Ilan Ramon, the first Israeli in space.
Columbia disintegrated over Texas as it was preparing to land Saturday, killing the seven astronauts aboard.
``It is a punishment from God,`` said al-Masri, noting that part of the shuttle`s wreckage fell near the town of Palestine, Texas.
Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, leader of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, dismissed the comments as ``just another of his lunatic pronouncements.
``Most Muslims will see this as a tragedy,`` he said. ``They were very brave and courageous people.``
Al-Masri has been ordered to leave his pulpit at London`s Finsbury Park Mosque by Britain`s charity watchdog because of his ``extreme and political`` statements.
In the last few years the mosque has become a center of radical Islam. Officials say previous worshippers include ``shoe-bomber`` Richard Reid and extremists who plotted to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Paris.
Once Upon A Time: When The World Spoke Arabic
Posted by
sarwar
Jan 27, 2003 09:08 am
All the primary sources for history in Indian subcontinent are in Persian. It is not enough for a scholar of the history of the Indian subcontinent to have a smattering of Persian. He must know the language thoroughly. In 1947, there were six universities in India where the Persian language was taught. Now there are 45 such universities in India. There are so many Persian teachers in India that they have a separate society which organizes functions every year to which leading Persian scholars from Iran are invited. In Pakistan, Persian was replaced by the Arabic language by Ziaul Haq as part of his Islamization drive.`` After all Persian was the language of Shia Muslims and Arabic was the language of Sunni Muslims. Pakistan was desperately trying to be part of the Arab world.
USA and Muslims
Rolling Back Radical Islam
RALPH PETERS
Ralph Peters is a retired US Army officer, a writer, and a frequent contributor to Parameters. His most recent book is Beyond Terror, Strategy in a Changing World, and his early novel, The War In 2020, which has developed a cult following over the years, has just been republished. Recent travels in Indonesia and India inspired the arguments presented in this essay.
Posted by
sarwar
Jan 20, 2003 09:33 pm
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/parameters/02autumn/peters.htmRolling Back Radical Islam
RALPH PETERS
Ralph Peters is a retired US Army officer, a writer, and a frequent contributor to Parameters. His most recent book is Beyond Terror, Strategy in a Changing World, and his early novel, The War In 2020, which has developed a cult following over the years, has just been republished. Recent travels in Indonesia and India inspired the arguments presented in this essay.
Bollywood Gupshup
Jinnah movie company goes bankrupt
Minister responsible, says ex-envoy’s wife
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: The Quaid Project Ltd, (QPL) UK, the maker of the Jinnah movie, has been declared bankrupt.
Earlier, a London court had awarded the movie’s Pakistani film director Jamil Dehlavi 58,000 pound sterling plus costs and directed QPL (UK) to pay him.
With the declaration of bankruptcy, Dehlavi is unlikely to recover his dues from the company set up in 1994 by Dr Akbar S Ahmed and some others. The QPL’s current director is Dr Ahmed’s wife, Mrs Zeenat Ahmed, who is now living in Washington with her husband, a professor at the American University, Washington. QPL (UK)’s registered office was in Slough, England.
The movie, a victim of unresolved problems leading to litigation, consequently, has not been released commercially anywhere, except in Pakistan where it ran in both its English and Urdu versions.
Following the bankruptcy, Mrs Ahmed addressed a letter to President Pervez Musharraf, asking him to proceed against Dr Nasim Ashraf, head of the National Commission for Human Development, whom she accused of “theft” and an “Indian connection”.
Dr Ashraf raised a good deal of money in America as head of the Quaid Film Project (USA) that enabled the director, Jamil Dehlavi, to complete the movie.
In her letter to the president, Mrs Ahmed has accused Dr Ashraf of having “encouraged” Jamil Dehlavi to go to the London High Court of Justice and file his lawsuit against QPL. She concedes though that the court directed that monies due to the director’s company, Petra Films Ltd, be paid to it, but takes the position that it was Dr Ashraf and his US-based company that was required to pay Dehlavi and not QPL (UK), something that is not part of the court order which appears to have determined that director Jamil Dehlavi’s company was owed 58,000 pound sterling plus costs by the UK-based QPL.
In her letter to Gen Musharraf, Mrs Ahmed also accuses Dr Ashraf “a minister of your regime standing with Pakistan-hater Farukh Dhondy, who swore on the Bible, although he is a Parsi, both attacking QPL and both giving statements in defence of Dehlavi.” Dhondi, it may be mentioned, was engaged by the producers to co-write the script of the movie, something that would appear to be in ironic clash with what is now being asserted by Mrs Ahmed.
She also accuses Dr Ashraf of trying to sell the movie to Eros, a worldwide Indian entertainment distributor, stating that if the deal goes through and the movie “lands up in the unclean hands of anti-Pakistan and anti-Jinnah Indian-Hindus or the ‘Pakistani’ agents of India — who have been so instrumental in trying to destroy it — they will distort the pure message of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the liberator of the Pakistani Nation. Pakistanis can no longer afford to just sit back, relax and watch the corruption dramas of the corrupt.” Dr Ashraf, who has been given the status of a Pakistan minister of state by President Musharraf, denies the charges and would counter them legally.
Posted by
sarwar
Nov 18, 2002 08:52 am
Lollywood GupshupJinnah movie company goes bankrupt
Minister responsible, says ex-envoy’s wife
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: The Quaid Project Ltd, (QPL) UK, the maker of the Jinnah movie, has been declared bankrupt.
Earlier, a London court had awarded the movie’s Pakistani film director Jamil Dehlavi 58,000 pound sterling plus costs and directed QPL (UK) to pay him.
With the declaration of bankruptcy, Dehlavi is unlikely to recover his dues from the company set up in 1994 by Dr Akbar S Ahmed and some others. The QPL’s current director is Dr Ahmed’s wife, Mrs Zeenat Ahmed, who is now living in Washington with her husband, a professor at the American University, Washington. QPL (UK)’s registered office was in Slough, England.
The movie, a victim of unresolved problems leading to litigation, consequently, has not been released commercially anywhere, except in Pakistan where it ran in both its English and Urdu versions.
Following the bankruptcy, Mrs Ahmed addressed a letter to President Pervez Musharraf, asking him to proceed against Dr Nasim Ashraf, head of the National Commission for Human Development, whom she accused of “theft” and an “Indian connection”.
Dr Ashraf raised a good deal of money in America as head of the Quaid Film Project (USA) that enabled the director, Jamil Dehlavi, to complete the movie.
In her letter to the president, Mrs Ahmed has accused Dr Ashraf of having “encouraged” Jamil Dehlavi to go to the London High Court of Justice and file his lawsuit against QPL. She concedes though that the court directed that monies due to the director’s company, Petra Films Ltd, be paid to it, but takes the position that it was Dr Ashraf and his US-based company that was required to pay Dehlavi and not QPL (UK), something that is not part of the court order which appears to have determined that director Jamil Dehlavi’s company was owed 58,000 pound sterling plus costs by the UK-based QPL.
In her letter to Gen Musharraf, Mrs Ahmed also accuses Dr Ashraf “a minister of your regime standing with Pakistan-hater Farukh Dhondy, who swore on the Bible, although he is a Parsi, both attacking QPL and both giving statements in defence of Dehlavi.” Dhondi, it may be mentioned, was engaged by the producers to co-write the script of the movie, something that would appear to be in ironic clash with what is now being asserted by Mrs Ahmed.
She also accuses Dr Ashraf of trying to sell the movie to Eros, a worldwide Indian entertainment distributor, stating that if the deal goes through and the movie “lands up in the unclean hands of anti-Pakistan and anti-Jinnah Indian-Hindus or the ‘Pakistani’ agents of India — who have been so instrumental in trying to destroy it — they will distort the pure message of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the liberator of the Pakistani Nation. Pakistanis can no longer afford to just sit back, relax and watch the corruption dramas of the corrupt.” Dr Ashraf, who has been given the status of a Pakistan minister of state by President Musharraf, denies the charges and would counter them legally.
Good-Riddance
Posted by
sarwar
Aug 16, 2002 04:03 pm
Yes, Kabuliwallah was made in Hindi with Balaraj Sahani as the title role and Usha Kiran as Mini`s mother.
Good-Riddance
Kabuliwallah (The Man from Kabul)
by Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941)
Translated by William Radice.
Taken from Selected Short Stories. New York: Penguin Books, 1991. <
My five-vear-old daughter Mini can`t stop talking for a minute. It only took her a year to learn to speak, after coming into the world, and ever since she has not wasted a minute of her waking hours by keeping silent. Her mother often scolds her and makes her shut up, but I can`t do that. When Mini is quiet, it is so unnatural that I cannot bear it. So her chattering gets quite a lot of encouragement from me.
One morning, as I was starting the seventeenth chapter of my novel, Mini came up to me and said, `Father, Ramdoyal the gatekeeper calls a crow a kauya instead of a kak. He doesn`t know anything, does he!`
Before I had a chance to enlighten her about the multiplicity of languages in the world, she brought up another subject. `Guess what, Father, Bhola says it rains when an elephant in the sky squirts water through its trunk. What nonsense he talks! He teases me, he teases me all day long.`
Without waiting for my opinion on this matter either, she suddenly asked, `Father, what relation is Mother to you?`
`Good question,’ I said to myself, but to Mini I said, `Run off and play with Bhola. I`ve got work to do.`
But she then sat down near my feet beside my writing-table, and, slapping her knees legan to recite ‘agdum bagdum’ at top speed. The hero of my seventeenth chapter, Pratap Singh, was meanwhile taking a niL,@,ht-time plunge into the river from the high window of his prison, with the Golden Garland in his hand.
My study looks out on to the road. Mini suddenly abandoned the ‘agdum bagdum’ game, ran over to the window and shouted, `Kabuliwallah, Kabuliwallah!`
Dressed in dirty baggy clothes, pugree on his head, bag hanging from his shoulder, and with three or four boxes of grapes in his hands, a tall Kabuliwallah was ambling along the road. It was hard to say exactly what thoughts the sight of him had put into my beloved daughter`s mind, but she hailed him most enthusiastically. That swinging bag spells danger, I thought: my seventeenth chapter won`t get finished today. But just as the Kabuliwallah, attracted by Mini`s shouts, looked towards us with a smile and started to approach our house, Mini gasped and ran into the inner rooms, disappearing from view. She had a blind conviction that if one looked inside that swinging bag one would find three or four live children like her.
Meanwhile the Kabuliwallah came up to the window and smilingly salaamed. I decided that although the plight of Pratap Singh and the Golden Garland was extremely critical, it would be churlish not to invite the fellow inside and buy something from him.
I bought something. Then I chatted to him for a bit. We talked about Abdur Rahman`s efforts to preserve the integrity of Afghanistan against the Russians and the British. When he got up to go, he asked, `Babu, where did your little girl go?`
To dispel her ungrounded fears, I called Mini to come out. She clung to me and looked suspiciously at the Kabuliwallah and his bag. The Kabuliwallah took some raisins and apricots out and offered them to her, but she would not take them, and clung to my knees with doubled suspicion. Thus passed her first meeting with the Kabuliwallah.
A few days later when for some reason I had to go out of the house one morning, I saw my daughter sitting on a bench in front of the door, nattering unrestrainedly; and the Kabuliwallah was sitting at her feet listening - grinning broadly, and from time to time making comments in his hybrid sort of Bengali. In all her five years of life, Mini had never found so patient a listener, apart from her father. I also saw that the fold of her little sari was crammed with raisins and nuts. I said to the Kabuliwallah, `Why have you given all these? Don`t give her any more.` I then took a half-rupee out of my pocket and gave it to him. He unhesitatingly took the coin and put it in his bag.
When I returned home, I found that this half-rupee had caused a full-scale row. Mini`s mother was holding up a round shining object and saying crossly to Mini, `Where did you get this half rupee from?`
`The Kabuliwallah gave it to me,` said Mini.
`Why did you take it from the Kabuliwallah?` said her mother.
`I didn`t ask for it,` said Mini tearfully. `He gave it to me himself.`
I rescued Mini from her mother`s wrath, and took her outside. I learnt that this was not just the second time that Mini and the Kabuliwallah had met: he had been coming nearly every day and, by bribing her eager little heart with pistachio-nuts, had quite won her over. I found that they now had certain fixed jokes and routines: for example as soon as Mini saw Rahamat, she giggled and asked, `Kabuliwallah, O Kabuliwallah, what have you got in your bag?` Rahamat would laugh back and say - giving the word a peculiar nasal twang - `An elephant.` The notion of an elephant in his bag was the source of immense hilarity; it might not be a very subtle joke, but they both seemed to find it very funny, and it gave me pleasure to see, on an autumn morning, a young child and a grown man laughing so innocently.
They had a couple of other jokes. Rahamat would say to Mini, `Little one, don`t ever go off to your ‘svasur-bari.` Most Bengali girls grow up hearing frequent references to their svasur-bari, but my wife and I are rather progressive people and we don`t keep talking to our young daughter about her future marriage. She therefore couldn`t clearly understand what Rahamat meant; yet to remain silent and give no reply was wholly against her nature, so she would turn the idea round and say, `Are you going to your svasur-bari?` Shaking his huge fist at an imaginary father-in-law Rahamat said, `I`ll settle him!` Mini laughed merrily as she imagined the fate awaiting this unknown creature called a svasur.
It was perfect autumn weather. In ancient times, kings used to set out on their world-conquests in autumn. I have never been away from Calcutta; precisely because of that, my-mind roves all over the world. I never seem to stir from my house, but I constantly yearn for the world outside. If I hear the name of a foreign land, at once my heart races towards it; and if I see a foreigner, at once an image of a cottage on some far bank or wooded mountainside forms in my mind, and I think of the free and pleasant life I would lead there. At the same time, I am such a rooted sort of individual that if I ever left my familiar spot it would be the end of me. So to sit each morning at my table in my little study, chatting with this Kabuliwallah, was quite enough wandering for me. High, scorched, blood-coloured, forbidding mountains on either side of a narrow desert path; laden camels passing; turbaned merchants and wayfarers, some on camels, some walking, some with spears in their hands, some with old-fashioned flintlock guns: my friend would talk of his native land in his booming, broken Bengali, and a mental picture of it would pass before my eyes.
Mini`s mother is very easily alarmed. The slightest noise in the street makes her think that all the world`s drunkards are charging straight at our house. She cannot dispel from her mind - despite her experience of life (which isn`t great) - the apprehension that the world is overrun with thieves, bandits, drunkards, snakes, tigers, malaria, caterpillars, cockroaches and white-skinned marauders. She was not too happy about Rahamat the Kabuliwallah. She repeatedly told me to keep a close eye on him. If I tried to laugh off her suspicions, she would launch into a succession of questions: `So do people`s children never go missing? And is there no slavery in Afghanistan? Is it completely impossible for a huge Afghan to kidnap a little child?` I had to admit that it was not impossible, but I found it hard to believe. People have different degrees of belief; this was why my wife was so afraid. But I still saw nothing wrong in letting Rahamat come to our house.
Every year, about the middle of the month of Magh, Rahamat went home. He was always very busy before he left, collecting money owed to him. He had to go from house to house; but he still made time to visit Mini. To see them together, one might well suppose that they were plotting something. If he couldn`t come in the morning he would come in the evening; to see his lanky figure approach the darkened house, with his baggy pyjamas hanging loosely around him, was a little frightening. But my heart would light up as Mini ran out to meet him, smiling and calling, `O Kabuliwallah, Kabuliwallah,` and the usual innocent jokes passed between the two friends, unequal in age though they were.
One morning I was sitting in my little study correcting proofsheets. The last days of winter had been very cold, with frost everywhere. The morning sun was shining through the window on to mv feet below my table, and this touch of warmth was very pleasant. It must have been about eight o`clock - early morning walkers, swathed in scarves, had mostly finished their dawn stroll and had returned to their homes. It was then that there was a sudden disturbance in the street.
I looked out and saw Rahamat in handcuffs, being marched along by two policemen, and behind him a crowd of curious boys. Rahamat`s clothes were blood-stained, and one of the policemen was holding a blood-soaked knife. I went outside and stopped him, asking what was up. I heard partly from him and partly from Rahamat himself that a neighbour of ours had owed Rahamat something for a Rampuri chadar; he had tried to lie his way out of the debt, and in the ensuing brawl Rahamat had stabbed him.
Rahamat was mouthing various unrepeatable curses against the lying debtor, when Mini ran out of the house calling, `Kabuliwallah, O Kabuliwallah.` For a moment Rahamat`s face lit up with pleasure. He had no bag over his shoulder today, so they couldn`t have their usual discussion about it. Mini came straight out with her `Are you going to vour svasur-bari?`
`Yes, I`m going there now,` said . Rahamat with a smile. But when he saw that his reply had alarmed Mini, he brandished his fist and said, `I would have killed my svasur, but how can I with these handcuffs on?`
Rahamat was convicted of assault, and sent to prison for several years. We virtually forgot about him. Living at home, carrying on day by day with our accustomed tasks, we gave no thought to how a free-spirited mountain-dweller was passing his years behind prison-walls. As for the capricious Mini, even her father would have to admit that her behaviour was not very praiseworthy. She swiftly forgot him. At first Nabi Sahis replaced him in her affections; later, as she grew up, girls rather than little boys became her favourite companions. She was not often seen in her father`s writing-room now. I became rather remote from her.
Several years went by. It was autumn again. Mini`s marriage had been decided, and the wedding was fixed for the puja-holiday. Our pride and joy would soon, like Durga going to Mount Kailas, darken her parents` house by moving to her husband`s. . It was a most beautiful morning. Sunlight, washed clean by autumn rains, seemed to cover everything with the gold of pure love. Its radiance lent an extraordinary grace to Calcutta`s backstreets, with their tumbledown, jam-packed, unremitting dwellings. The stindi started to play in our house before night was over. Its plaintive vibrations seemed to well up from my chest, resound inside my rib-cage. Its sad Bhairavi- raga seemed, like the autumn sunshine, to fill the whole world with the grief of imminent separation. Today my Mini would be married.
From dawn on there was uproar, endless coming and going. A bevy of people worked in the yard of the house, binding bamboo poles together to erect a canopy; in the rooms and verandahs brooms swished and scratched; the shouting was continuous.
I was sitting in my study doing accounts, when Rahamat suddenly appeared and salaamed before me. At first I didn`t recognize him. He had no bag, he had lost his long hair; his former vigour had gone. But when he smiled, I recognized him.
`How are you, Rahamat?` I said. `When did you come?` `I, was let out of prison yesterday evening,` he replied.
His words took me aback. I had never confronted a would-be murderer before; seeing him made me all nervous inside. I began to feel that on this auspicious morning it would be better to have the man out of the way. `There`s something happening in our house today,` I said. `I`m rather busy. Please go now.`
He was ready to go at once, but just as he reached the door he hesitated a little and said, `Can`t I see your little girl for a moment?`
It seemed he thought that Mini was still just as she was when he had known her: that she would come running as before, calling `Kabuliwallah, O Kabuliwallah!`; that their old merry banter would resume. He had even brought (remembering their old friendship) a box of grapes and a few pistachio-nuts wrapped in paper - extracted, no doubt, from some Afghan friend of his, having no bag of his own now.
`There`s something happening in the house today,` I said. `You can`t see anyone.`
He looked rather crestfallen. He stood silently for a moment longer, casting a solemn ,,lance at me; then, saying `Babu salaam`, he walked towards the door. I felt a bit ashamed. I thought of calling him back, but then I saw that he himself was returning.
`I brought this box of grapes and these pistachio-nuts for the little one,` he said. `Please give them to her.` Taking them from him, I was about to pay him for them when he suddenly gripped my arm and said, `Please, don`t give me any money - I shall always be grateful, Babu. Just as you have a daughter, so do I have one, in my own country. It is with her in mind that I have come with a few raisins for your daughter: I haven`t come to trade with you.`
Then he put a hand inside his big loose shirt and took out from somewhere close to his heart a dirty piece of paper. Unfolding it very carefully, he spread it out on my table. There was a small handprint on the paper: not a photograph, not a painting - the hand had been rubbed with some soot and pressed down on to the paper. Every year Rahamat carried this memento of his daughter with him when he came to sell raisins in Calcutta`s streets: as if the touch of that soft, small, childish hand brought solace to his huge, homesick breast. My eyes swam at the sight of it. I forgot then that he was an Afghan raisin-seller and I was a Bengali Babu. I understood then that he was as I am, t at e was a father just as I am a father. The handprint of his little mountain-dwelling Parvati reminded me of my own Mini.
At once I sent for her from the women`s quarter of the house. Objections came back: I refused to listen to them. Mini, dressed as a bride - sandal-paste on her brow, red`sarl - came timidly into the room and stood before me.
The Kabuliwallah was confused at first when he saw her: he couldn`t bring himself to utter his old greeting. But at last he smiled and said, `Little one, are you going to your svasur-bari?` Mini now knew the meaning of svasur-bari; she couldn`t reply as before - she blushed at Rahamat`s question and looked away. I recalled the day when Mini and the Kabuliwallah had first met. My heart ached.
Mini left the room, and Rahamat, sighing deeply, sat down on the floor. He suddenly understood clearly that his own daughter would have grown up too since he last saw her, and with her too he would have to be reintroduced: he would not be able to greet her as he had always done before. Who knew what had happened to her these eight years? In the cool autumn morning sunshine the sanai went on playing, and Rahamat sat in a Calcutta lane and pictured to himself the barren mountains of Afghanistan.
I went out and gave him a banknote. `Rahamat,` I said, `go back to your homeland and your daughter; by your blessed reunion, Mini will be blessed.`
By giving him this money, I had to trim certain items from the wedding-festivities. I wasn`t able to afford the electric lights I had planned, and the military band did not come. The womenfolk .were very displeased at this; but for me, the wedding was bathed in a kinder, more beneficent light.
Posted by
sarwar
Aug 15, 2002 07:34 pm
Another translation of a famous story. Enjoy ..Kabuliwallah (The Man from Kabul)
by Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941)
Translated by William Radice.
Taken from Selected Short Stories. New York: Penguin Books, 1991. <
My five-vear-old daughter Mini can`t stop talking for a minute. It only took her a year to learn to speak, after coming into the world, and ever since she has not wasted a minute of her waking hours by keeping silent. Her mother often scolds her and makes her shut up, but I can`t do that. When Mini is quiet, it is so unnatural that I cannot bear it. So her chattering gets quite a lot of encouragement from me.
One morning, as I was starting the seventeenth chapter of my novel, Mini came up to me and said, `Father, Ramdoyal the gatekeeper calls a crow a kauya instead of a kak. He doesn`t know anything, does he!`
Before I had a chance to enlighten her about the multiplicity of languages in the world, she brought up another subject. `Guess what, Father, Bhola says it rains when an elephant in the sky squirts water through its trunk. What nonsense he talks! He teases me, he teases me all day long.`
Without waiting for my opinion on this matter either, she suddenly asked, `Father, what relation is Mother to you?`
`Good question,’ I said to myself, but to Mini I said, `Run off and play with Bhola. I`ve got work to do.`
But she then sat down near my feet beside my writing-table, and, slapping her knees legan to recite ‘agdum bagdum’ at top speed. The hero of my seventeenth chapter, Pratap Singh, was meanwhile taking a niL,@,ht-time plunge into the river from the high window of his prison, with the Golden Garland in his hand.
My study looks out on to the road. Mini suddenly abandoned the ‘agdum bagdum’ game, ran over to the window and shouted, `Kabuliwallah, Kabuliwallah!`
Dressed in dirty baggy clothes, pugree on his head, bag hanging from his shoulder, and with three or four boxes of grapes in his hands, a tall Kabuliwallah was ambling along the road. It was hard to say exactly what thoughts the sight of him had put into my beloved daughter`s mind, but she hailed him most enthusiastically. That swinging bag spells danger, I thought: my seventeenth chapter won`t get finished today. But just as the Kabuliwallah, attracted by Mini`s shouts, looked towards us with a smile and started to approach our house, Mini gasped and ran into the inner rooms, disappearing from view. She had a blind conviction that if one looked inside that swinging bag one would find three or four live children like her.
Meanwhile the Kabuliwallah came up to the window and smilingly salaamed. I decided that although the plight of Pratap Singh and the Golden Garland was extremely critical, it would be churlish not to invite the fellow inside and buy something from him.
I bought something. Then I chatted to him for a bit. We talked about Abdur Rahman`s efforts to preserve the integrity of Afghanistan against the Russians and the British. When he got up to go, he asked, `Babu, where did your little girl go?`
To dispel her ungrounded fears, I called Mini to come out. She clung to me and looked suspiciously at the Kabuliwallah and his bag. The Kabuliwallah took some raisins and apricots out and offered them to her, but she would not take them, and clung to my knees with doubled suspicion. Thus passed her first meeting with the Kabuliwallah.
A few days later when for some reason I had to go out of the house one morning, I saw my daughter sitting on a bench in front of the door, nattering unrestrainedly; and the Kabuliwallah was sitting at her feet listening - grinning broadly, and from time to time making comments in his hybrid sort of Bengali. In all her five years of life, Mini had never found so patient a listener, apart from her father. I also saw that the fold of her little sari was crammed with raisins and nuts. I said to the Kabuliwallah, `Why have you given all these? Don`t give her any more.` I then took a half-rupee out of my pocket and gave it to him. He unhesitatingly took the coin and put it in his bag.
When I returned home, I found that this half-rupee had caused a full-scale row. Mini`s mother was holding up a round shining object and saying crossly to Mini, `Where did you get this half rupee from?`
`The Kabuliwallah gave it to me,` said Mini.
`Why did you take it from the Kabuliwallah?` said her mother.
`I didn`t ask for it,` said Mini tearfully. `He gave it to me himself.`
I rescued Mini from her mother`s wrath, and took her outside. I learnt that this was not just the second time that Mini and the Kabuliwallah had met: he had been coming nearly every day and, by bribing her eager little heart with pistachio-nuts, had quite won her over. I found that they now had certain fixed jokes and routines: for example as soon as Mini saw Rahamat, she giggled and asked, `Kabuliwallah, O Kabuliwallah, what have you got in your bag?` Rahamat would laugh back and say - giving the word a peculiar nasal twang - `An elephant.` The notion of an elephant in his bag was the source of immense hilarity; it might not be a very subtle joke, but they both seemed to find it very funny, and it gave me pleasure to see, on an autumn morning, a young child and a grown man laughing so innocently.
They had a couple of other jokes. Rahamat would say to Mini, `Little one, don`t ever go off to your ‘svasur-bari.` Most Bengali girls grow up hearing frequent references to their svasur-bari, but my wife and I are rather progressive people and we don`t keep talking to our young daughter about her future marriage. She therefore couldn`t clearly understand what Rahamat meant; yet to remain silent and give no reply was wholly against her nature, so she would turn the idea round and say, `Are you going to your svasur-bari?` Shaking his huge fist at an imaginary father-in-law Rahamat said, `I`ll settle him!` Mini laughed merrily as she imagined the fate awaiting this unknown creature called a svasur.
It was perfect autumn weather. In ancient times, kings used to set out on their world-conquests in autumn. I have never been away from Calcutta; precisely because of that, my-mind roves all over the world. I never seem to stir from my house, but I constantly yearn for the world outside. If I hear the name of a foreign land, at once my heart races towards it; and if I see a foreigner, at once an image of a cottage on some far bank or wooded mountainside forms in my mind, and I think of the free and pleasant life I would lead there. At the same time, I am such a rooted sort of individual that if I ever left my familiar spot it would be the end of me. So to sit each morning at my table in my little study, chatting with this Kabuliwallah, was quite enough wandering for me. High, scorched, blood-coloured, forbidding mountains on either side of a narrow desert path; laden camels passing; turbaned merchants and wayfarers, some on camels, some walking, some with spears in their hands, some with old-fashioned flintlock guns: my friend would talk of his native land in his booming, broken Bengali, and a mental picture of it would pass before my eyes.
Mini`s mother is very easily alarmed. The slightest noise in the street makes her think that all the world`s drunkards are charging straight at our house. She cannot dispel from her mind - despite her experience of life (which isn`t great) - the apprehension that the world is overrun with thieves, bandits, drunkards, snakes, tigers, malaria, caterpillars, cockroaches and white-skinned marauders. She was not too happy about Rahamat the Kabuliwallah. She repeatedly told me to keep a close eye on him. If I tried to laugh off her suspicions, she would launch into a succession of questions: `So do people`s children never go missing? And is there no slavery in Afghanistan? Is it completely impossible for a huge Afghan to kidnap a little child?` I had to admit that it was not impossible, but I found it hard to believe. People have different degrees of belief; this was why my wife was so afraid. But I still saw nothing wrong in letting Rahamat come to our house.
Every year, about the middle of the month of Magh, Rahamat went home. He was always very busy before he left, collecting money owed to him. He had to go from house to house; but he still made time to visit Mini. To see them together, one might well suppose that they were plotting something. If he couldn`t come in the morning he would come in the evening; to see his lanky figure approach the darkened house, with his baggy pyjamas hanging loosely around him, was a little frightening. But my heart would light up as Mini ran out to meet him, smiling and calling, `O Kabuliwallah, Kabuliwallah,` and the usual innocent jokes passed between the two friends, unequal in age though they were.
One morning I was sitting in my little study correcting proofsheets. The last days of winter had been very cold, with frost everywhere. The morning sun was shining through the window on to mv feet below my table, and this touch of warmth was very pleasant. It must have been about eight o`clock - early morning walkers, swathed in scarves, had mostly finished their dawn stroll and had returned to their homes. It was then that there was a sudden disturbance in the street.
I looked out and saw Rahamat in handcuffs, being marched along by two policemen, and behind him a crowd of curious boys. Rahamat`s clothes were blood-stained, and one of the policemen was holding a blood-soaked knife. I went outside and stopped him, asking what was up. I heard partly from him and partly from Rahamat himself that a neighbour of ours had owed Rahamat something for a Rampuri chadar; he had tried to lie his way out of the debt, and in the ensuing brawl Rahamat had stabbed him.
Rahamat was mouthing various unrepeatable curses against the lying debtor, when Mini ran out of the house calling, `Kabuliwallah, O Kabuliwallah.` For a moment Rahamat`s face lit up with pleasure. He had no bag over his shoulder today, so they couldn`t have their usual discussion about it. Mini came straight out with her `Are you going to vour svasur-bari?`
`Yes, I`m going there now,` said . Rahamat with a smile. But when he saw that his reply had alarmed Mini, he brandished his fist and said, `I would have killed my svasur, but how can I with these handcuffs on?`
Rahamat was convicted of assault, and sent to prison for several years. We virtually forgot about him. Living at home, carrying on day by day with our accustomed tasks, we gave no thought to how a free-spirited mountain-dweller was passing his years behind prison-walls. As for the capricious Mini, even her father would have to admit that her behaviour was not very praiseworthy. She swiftly forgot him. At first Nabi Sahis replaced him in her affections; later, as she grew up, girls rather than little boys became her favourite companions. She was not often seen in her father`s writing-room now. I became rather remote from her.
Several years went by. It was autumn again. Mini`s marriage had been decided, and the wedding was fixed for the puja-holiday. Our pride and joy would soon, like Durga going to Mount Kailas, darken her parents` house by moving to her husband`s. . It was a most beautiful morning. Sunlight, washed clean by autumn rains, seemed to cover everything with the gold of pure love. Its radiance lent an extraordinary grace to Calcutta`s backstreets, with their tumbledown, jam-packed, unremitting dwellings. The stindi started to play in our house before night was over. Its plaintive vibrations seemed to well up from my chest, resound inside my rib-cage. Its sad Bhairavi- raga seemed, like the autumn sunshine, to fill the whole world with the grief of imminent separation. Today my Mini would be married.
From dawn on there was uproar, endless coming and going. A bevy of people worked in the yard of the house, binding bamboo poles together to erect a canopy; in the rooms and verandahs brooms swished and scratched; the shouting was continuous.
I was sitting in my study doing accounts, when Rahamat suddenly appeared and salaamed before me. At first I didn`t recognize him. He had no bag, he had lost his long hair; his former vigour had gone. But when he smiled, I recognized him.
`How are you, Rahamat?` I said. `When did you come?` `I, was let out of prison yesterday evening,` he replied.
His words took me aback. I had never confronted a would-be murderer before; seeing him made me all nervous inside. I began to feel that on this auspicious morning it would be better to have the man out of the way. `There`s something happening in our house today,` I said. `I`m rather busy. Please go now.`
He was ready to go at once, but just as he reached the door he hesitated a little and said, `Can`t I see your little girl for a moment?`
It seemed he thought that Mini was still just as she was when he had known her: that she would come running as before, calling `Kabuliwallah, O Kabuliwallah!`; that their old merry banter would resume. He had even brought (remembering their old friendship) a box of grapes and a few pistachio-nuts wrapped in paper - extracted, no doubt, from some Afghan friend of his, having no bag of his own now.
`There`s something happening in the house today,` I said. `You can`t see anyone.`
He looked rather crestfallen. He stood silently for a moment longer, casting a solemn ,,lance at me; then, saying `Babu salaam`, he walked towards the door. I felt a bit ashamed. I thought of calling him back, but then I saw that he himself was returning.
`I brought this box of grapes and these pistachio-nuts for the little one,` he said. `Please give them to her.` Taking them from him, I was about to pay him for them when he suddenly gripped my arm and said, `Please, don`t give me any money - I shall always be grateful, Babu. Just as you have a daughter, so do I have one, in my own country. It is with her in mind that I have come with a few raisins for your daughter: I haven`t come to trade with you.`
Then he put a hand inside his big loose shirt and took out from somewhere close to his heart a dirty piece of paper. Unfolding it very carefully, he spread it out on my table. There was a small handprint on the paper: not a photograph, not a painting - the hand had been rubbed with some soot and pressed down on to the paper. Every year Rahamat carried this memento of his daughter with him when he came to sell raisins in Calcutta`s streets: as if the touch of that soft, small, childish hand brought solace to his huge, homesick breast. My eyes swam at the sight of it. I forgot then that he was an Afghan raisin-seller and I was a Bengali Babu. I understood then that he was as I am, t at e was a father just as I am a father. The handprint of his little mountain-dwelling Parvati reminded me of my own Mini.
At once I sent for her from the women`s quarter of the house. Objections came back: I refused to listen to them. Mini, dressed as a bride - sandal-paste on her brow, red`sarl - came timidly into the room and stood before me.
The Kabuliwallah was confused at first when he saw her: he couldn`t bring himself to utter his old greeting. But at last he smiled and said, `Little one, are you going to your svasur-bari?` Mini now knew the meaning of svasur-bari; she couldn`t reply as before - she blushed at Rahamat`s question and looked away. I recalled the day when Mini and the Kabuliwallah had first met. My heart ached.
Mini left the room, and Rahamat, sighing deeply, sat down on the floor. He suddenly understood clearly that his own daughter would have grown up too since he last saw her, and with her too he would have to be reintroduced: he would not be able to greet her as he had always done before. Who knew what had happened to her these eight years? In the cool autumn morning sunshine the sanai went on playing, and Rahamat sat in a Calcutta lane and pictured to himself the barren mountains of Afghanistan.
I went out and gave him a banknote. `Rahamat,` I said, `go back to your homeland and your daughter; by your blessed reunion, Mini will be blessed.`
By giving him this money, I had to trim certain items from the wedding-festivities. I wasn`t able to afford the electric lights I had planned, and the military band did not come. The womenfolk .were very displeased at this; but for me, the wedding was bathed in a kinder, more beneficent light.
The Good Wife
Hope some one reviews it on CHOWK.
A Breath of Fresh Air: By Amulya Malladi
Posted by
sarwar
Jul 31, 2002 05:01 pm
I would like to recommend all Chowkies Amulya Malladi`s new novel. ``A Breath of Fresh Air`` available in bookstores in US.Hope some one reviews it on CHOWK.
A Breath of Fresh Air: By Amulya Malladi
Love
Hope some one reviews it on CHOWK.
A Breath of Fresh Air: By Amulya Malladi
Posted by
sarwar
Jul 31, 2002 05:01 pm
I would like to recommend all Chowkies Amulya Malladi`s new novel. ``A Breath of Fresh Air`` available in bookstores in US.Hope some one reviews it on CHOWK.
A Breath of Fresh Air: By Amulya Malladi
Dissing Ideologies
Mohammed Ayoob
New York Times
Dec 29, 2001
Posted by
sarwar
Jun 11, 2002 04:07 pm
Changing the territorial status quo in Kashmir may be dear to many Pakistani Muslim hearts, but preserving the status quo is equally dear to most Indian Muslims opposed to another partition based on religion.Mohammed Ayoob
New York Times
Dec 29, 2001
I am Ashamed and I Apologize
Mohammed Ayoob
New York Times
Dec 29, 2001
Posted by
sarwar
Jun 11, 2002 04:07 pm
Changing the territorial status quo in Kashmir may be dear to many Pakistani Muslim hearts, but preserving the status quo is equally dear to most Indian Muslims opposed to another partition based on religion.Mohammed Ayoob
New York Times
Dec 29, 2001
The Perfect Murder
Mohammed Ayoob
New York Times
Dec 29, 2001
Posted by
sarwar
Jun 11, 2002 04:07 pm
Changing the territorial status quo in Kashmir may be dear to many Pakistani Muslim hearts, but preserving the status quo is equally dear to most Indian Muslims opposed to another partition based on religion.Mohammed Ayoob
New York Times
Dec 29, 2001
Lighting The Nuclear Fire
Mohammed Ayoob
New York Times
Dec 29, 2001
Posted by
sarwar
Jun 11, 2002 04:07 pm
Changing the territorial status quo in Kashmir may be dear to many Pakistani Muslim hearts, but preserving the status quo is equally dear to most Indian Muslims opposed to another partition based on religion.Mohammed Ayoob
New York Times
Dec 29, 2001
Of Violent Birth and Peaceful Death
Mohammed Ayoob
New York Times
Dec 29, 2001
Posted by
sarwar
Jun 11, 2002 04:07 pm
Changing the territorial status quo in Kashmir may be dear to many Pakistani Muslim hearts, but preserving the status quo is equally dear to most Indian Muslims opposed to another partition based on religion.Mohammed Ayoob
New York Times
Dec 29, 2001
A Line Runs Through It
India has to remain secular. That is what India is based on. Most Indians believe in secular fabric of India. India is multi religious , multi lingual democracy and Pakistan should not play the Islamic card everytime.
Hindu fundamentalists are increasing because everyday they hear from media about how Islamic terrorists and militants are creating havoc in Kashmir, Delhi, Phillipines, US etc. Every other terrorist caught in US by FBI has a Pakistani connection. From Shiekh Omar who killed Daniel Pearl, to Ramzi Youssef to Jose Padilla (al Muhajir) have a Pakistani connection. Last week two Pakistanis were arrested in Florida to blow up Jewish establishments. Abu Sayyaf, Al Quaeda also have support from Pakistani ISI or have been trained in Pakistani madarassahs.
CNN, MSNBC, FOX NEWS all channels talk day and night about Islamic terrorists and Pakistani connection.
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=209048
Washington Post
Bottom Line
By Selig S. Harrison
Tuesday, June 11, 2002; Page A25
Washington Post
While the world`s attention is riveted on Kashmir as the flashpoint of a possible India-Pakistan war, 120,000 Indian Muslims remain in Gujarat refugee camps -- afraid to return to their villages, where they fear a resurgence of the Hindu mob attacks that left 1,200 dead in March.
This festering challenge to India`s stability as a secular democracy explains what the Kashmir crisis is all about. The governing factor in the current confrontation between New Delhi and Islamabad is the danger of an uncontrollable chain reaction of Hindu reprisals against Muslims throughout India if the Muslims of Kashmir opt for independence or for accession to Pakistan.
New Delhi is prepared to risk war not for the sake of retaining Kashmir as such but to ensure against the destabilizing impact of a change in the status quo on India as a whole. The political heirs of Gandhi and Nehru in India believe that Kashmir, as the only Indian state with a Muslim majority, must remain in the Indian Union as proof that Hindus and Muslims can live together in a secular state.
Conversely, the growing Hindu right wing would point to the secession of Kashmir as conclusive evidence that all of the 130 million Muslims in India are potential traitors and should either bow to Hindu domination or go to Pakistan.
Definitive action by the United States is urgently needed to make Pakistan realize, once and for all, nothing is to be gained by stoking the fires of insurgency in Kashmir.
It is not enough to insist on a cessation of Pakistani sponsorship of infiltration by Islamic militants across the 450-mile ``Line of Control,`` the U.N. cease-fire line imposed when the first Kashmir war ended in 1949 and ratified in the 1972 Indo-Pakistan Simla Agreement. Even if Gen. Pervez Musharraf stops infiltration for the moment, he will be under unremitting domestic pressure to start it up again as soon as the current crisis subsides.
What is required is an unambiguous declaration by the United States that a permanent Kashmir settlement will have to rest on recognition of the 53-year-old cease-fire line as the permanent international boundary. Such a declaration by the United States and other major powers is the only way to get Pakistani leaders to dismantle their entire infrastructure for cross-border infiltration and to stop financial and military aid to the insurgents.
Pakistani policy rests on the hope that the major powers can be induced to internationalize the dispute and, ultimately, support accession of the Indian-controlled Kashmir Valley to Pakistan, which holds the other 37 percent of the state.
Musharraf`s promise to pull back can produce only temporary results, because there are built-in limits to his power. On the Kashmir issue, he is beholden to Islamic militant sympathizers among powerful fellow generals in the armed forces and intelligence agencies.
If Musharraf is, in fact, ready to negotiate a realistic Kashmir solution, American support for a settlement based on the cease-fire line would help him convince his fellow generals that there is no point in perpetuating the Kashmir insurgency. At the same time, it would strengthen moderates in India prepared to accept the Line of Control as the basis for a settlement and to give up Indian claims to Pakistani-held areas of Kashmir.
In return for Pakistani acceptance of the Line of Control as a permanent boundary, the United States should pledge the long-term continuation of the massive economic aid Pakistan has been receiving since Sept. 11. Islamabad desperately needs this aid to head off a fiscal collapse.
An added inducement would be U.S. recognition of Pakistan`s control over Gilgit, Baltistan and Hunza, three areas of northern Kashmir incorporated into Pakistan over India`s protests, and of a China-Pakistan border settlement in Kashmir also disputed by India.
To show that it is serious about stabilizing the Line of Control, the United States should provide India with state-of-the-art ground-based and airborne surveillance equipment to enable New Delhi to detect infiltration and stop it. At a minimum, the United States could give India the latest ground-based monitoring equipment developed for use along the Mexican border and for enforcement of the 1973 Sinai Desert cease-fire agreement.
To have a decisive impact, U.S. surveillance help would also have to include sophisticated airborne radar scanners and night-vision video cameras, such as the Lynx and Skyball systems developed for the Predator unmanned monitoring aircraft that have proved so effective in Afghanistan. This would require a waiver of U.S. export restrictions.
If U.S. surveillance assistance to India did not deter Pakistani-sponsored infiltration, the United States could then escalate its help by leasing the Predator aircraft to New Delhi and sharing the results of U.S. spy satellite monitoring along the Line of Control.
By providing surveillance equipment and declaring its support for a partition that would give India the lion`s share of Kashmir, the United States would be in a stronger position to put effective pressure on India for a more flexible posture toward negotiations with the Kashmiri insurgent groups and with Pakistan that would, one hopes, lead to wide-ranging autonomy for the Kashmiris under both Indian and Pakistani jurisdiction.
For different reasons, neither India nor Pakistan wants Kashmir to be independent, and the United States, like India, has special reason to view such a prospect with alarm. Independence would make Kashmir a permanent sanctuary for Islamic extremist terrorist operations.
American interests would be best served by promoting an autonomous Kashmir within the Indian security framework, reflecting a broader recognition that India, a rising power, will be much more important to the United States in future decades than troubled Pakistan, one-eighth its size.
The writer, a former South Asia bureau chief for The Post, has reported on the region since 1951. He is currently director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy and a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
Posted by
sarwar
Jun 11, 2002 01:56 pm
Pakistan should not stoke Islamic passions among Indian Muslims and promote cross border terrorism in Kashmir and other parts of India. Remember there are 150 million Muslims in India. If Kashmir becomes part of Pakistan, the lives of 150 Indian Muslims is at stake. India cannot and will not sacrifice 150 million Indian Muslims for the sake of few Kashmiris. There would be more Gujarat like situations in India . Will Pakistan be able to accomodate 150 million Indian Muslims if Pakistan succeeds in partitioning India? India has to remain secular. That is what India is based on. Most Indians believe in secular fabric of India. India is multi religious , multi lingual democracy and Pakistan should not play the Islamic card everytime.
Hindu fundamentalists are increasing because everyday they hear from media about how Islamic terrorists and militants are creating havoc in Kashmir, Delhi, Phillipines, US etc. Every other terrorist caught in US by FBI has a Pakistani connection. From Shiekh Omar who killed Daniel Pearl, to Ramzi Youssef to Jose Padilla (al Muhajir) have a Pakistani connection. Last week two Pakistanis were arrested in Florida to blow up Jewish establishments. Abu Sayyaf, Al Quaeda also have support from Pakistani ISI or have been trained in Pakistani madarassahs.
CNN, MSNBC, FOX NEWS all channels talk day and night about Islamic terrorists and Pakistani connection.
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=209048
Washington Post
Bottom Line
By Selig S. Harrison
Tuesday, June 11, 2002; Page A25
Washington Post
While the world`s attention is riveted on Kashmir as the flashpoint of a possible India-Pakistan war, 120,000 Indian Muslims remain in Gujarat refugee camps -- afraid to return to their villages, where they fear a resurgence of the Hindu mob attacks that left 1,200 dead in March.
This festering challenge to India`s stability as a secular democracy explains what the Kashmir crisis is all about. The governing factor in the current confrontation between New Delhi and Islamabad is the danger of an uncontrollable chain reaction of Hindu reprisals against Muslims throughout India if the Muslims of Kashmir opt for independence or for accession to Pakistan.
New Delhi is prepared to risk war not for the sake of retaining Kashmir as such but to ensure against the destabilizing impact of a change in the status quo on India as a whole. The political heirs of Gandhi and Nehru in India believe that Kashmir, as the only Indian state with a Muslim majority, must remain in the Indian Union as proof that Hindus and Muslims can live together in a secular state.
Conversely, the growing Hindu right wing would point to the secession of Kashmir as conclusive evidence that all of the 130 million Muslims in India are potential traitors and should either bow to Hindu domination or go to Pakistan.
Definitive action by the United States is urgently needed to make Pakistan realize, once and for all, nothing is to be gained by stoking the fires of insurgency in Kashmir.
It is not enough to insist on a cessation of Pakistani sponsorship of infiltration by Islamic militants across the 450-mile ``Line of Control,`` the U.N. cease-fire line imposed when the first Kashmir war ended in 1949 and ratified in the 1972 Indo-Pakistan Simla Agreement. Even if Gen. Pervez Musharraf stops infiltration for the moment, he will be under unremitting domestic pressure to start it up again as soon as the current crisis subsides.
What is required is an unambiguous declaration by the United States that a permanent Kashmir settlement will have to rest on recognition of the 53-year-old cease-fire line as the permanent international boundary. Such a declaration by the United States and other major powers is the only way to get Pakistani leaders to dismantle their entire infrastructure for cross-border infiltration and to stop financial and military aid to the insurgents.
Pakistani policy rests on the hope that the major powers can be induced to internationalize the dispute and, ultimately, support accession of the Indian-controlled Kashmir Valley to Pakistan, which holds the other 37 percent of the state.
Musharraf`s promise to pull back can produce only temporary results, because there are built-in limits to his power. On the Kashmir issue, he is beholden to Islamic militant sympathizers among powerful fellow generals in the armed forces and intelligence agencies.
If Musharraf is, in fact, ready to negotiate a realistic Kashmir solution, American support for a settlement based on the cease-fire line would help him convince his fellow generals that there is no point in perpetuating the Kashmir insurgency. At the same time, it would strengthen moderates in India prepared to accept the Line of Control as the basis for a settlement and to give up Indian claims to Pakistani-held areas of Kashmir.
In return for Pakistani acceptance of the Line of Control as a permanent boundary, the United States should pledge the long-term continuation of the massive economic aid Pakistan has been receiving since Sept. 11. Islamabad desperately needs this aid to head off a fiscal collapse.
An added inducement would be U.S. recognition of Pakistan`s control over Gilgit, Baltistan and Hunza, three areas of northern Kashmir incorporated into Pakistan over India`s protests, and of a China-Pakistan border settlement in Kashmir also disputed by India.
To show that it is serious about stabilizing the Line of Control, the United States should provide India with state-of-the-art ground-based and airborne surveillance equipment to enable New Delhi to detect infiltration and stop it. At a minimum, the United States could give India the latest ground-based monitoring equipment developed for use along the Mexican border and for enforcement of the 1973 Sinai Desert cease-fire agreement.
To have a decisive impact, U.S. surveillance help would also have to include sophisticated airborne radar scanners and night-vision video cameras, such as the Lynx and Skyball systems developed for the Predator unmanned monitoring aircraft that have proved so effective in Afghanistan. This would require a waiver of U.S. export restrictions.
If U.S. surveillance assistance to India did not deter Pakistani-sponsored infiltration, the United States could then escalate its help by leasing the Predator aircraft to New Delhi and sharing the results of U.S. spy satellite monitoring along the Line of Control.
By providing surveillance equipment and declaring its support for a partition that would give India the lion`s share of Kashmir, the United States would be in a stronger position to put effective pressure on India for a more flexible posture toward negotiations with the Kashmiri insurgent groups and with Pakistan that would, one hopes, lead to wide-ranging autonomy for the Kashmiris under both Indian and Pakistani jurisdiction.
For different reasons, neither India nor Pakistan wants Kashmir to be independent, and the United States, like India, has special reason to view such a prospect with alarm. Independence would make Kashmir a permanent sanctuary for Islamic extremist terrorist operations.
American interests would be best served by promoting an autonomous Kashmir within the Indian security framework, reflecting a broader recognition that India, a rising power, will be much more important to the United States in future decades than troubled Pakistan, one-eighth its size.
The writer, a former South Asia bureau chief for The Post, has reported on the region since 1951. He is currently director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy and a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
- sarwar
- Interacts: 455
- iLogs: 0
- Gallery: 0
- Page views: 451
- Last visitor: guest
- Member since: Mar 4 1999
- Last signin: Sep 14 2003
- Send a message
- Add as friend
- Add to ignore list
- Add to block list
