Talking of Talks

For an interesting perspective on the eternal litany of talks, chowkwalas might find this PBS documentary enlightening:

Mandir, Masjid, Mandal and Marx (1991)

regards

Re: Rana Ransher`s reply to RR

Well said ! Your point is apt; we can not continually try to atone for the sins of our forefathers. At some point, we have to accept the occurance and responsibility for our past historical injustices and try to understand the mistake. To say one is sorry for the sins of ones` ancestors is a noble intent, but it does not really rectify the situation. What is done, can not be undone.

That is my biggest problem with RR`s logic. RR, that is the crux of my problem with political correctness. It seeks to rewrite the past in a more tolerable light. Since PC forces us to amend the past, we do not learn from it and thus, are condemned to repeat it.

RR, why are you so keen on reviving the Hindu-Muslim antagonisms by your Truth and Reconciliation commisions ? That commission will be nothing more than a finger pointing, I accuse you, mentality within a legal frame work. The key to better relations between the Hindus and the Muslims is not more commissions, staffed by self serving bureaucrats, but in encouraging common contacts that are devoid of politicans and by-pass their influences.

The majority of Indians do not hate Pakistanis and the majority of Pakistanis do not hate the Indians, but we see ourselves as mortal enemies why, because the politicans tell us. They are the real enemies of peace in the sub-continent, not the people who live there. Our common enemy is not each other, but hunger; our common fear is not each other, but the evil of ignorance fed by a lack of an education. By that same token, our common hope is for a better future for our children without the entanglements of creed, religion and economic status quo. We have more in common with each other than we have with the politicans who represent us.

It is high time that we, a suffering one-fifth of humanity, stop bewailing our victimizations and instead, we should be exploiting our potentials. Instead of making the past more just for the dead, we should be making the future more brighter for our living posterity. Instead of killing each other at the behest of our politicans, we should be saying to them with one defiant and irrevocable voice, ``you do your worst and we will do our best!`` with the unbridled knowledge that our path is the way of the right and the just and that our feet, in the course of our struggle, will one day finally trample onto the vinyards where the grapes of wrath are sown.

In the immortal words of Fleetwood Mac: ``Don`t stop thinking about tomorrow, it will be here soon yesterday is gone, yesterday is gone.``

RanaRansher

Excellent response. I think just as the world thinks Muslims as one large monolithic group, we as Muslims may be accused of thinking the same of Hindus and Christians.

While I might agree that the ordinary Brits are not to blame, I would say that it is human to make the aggressor say that they were sorry. As an example I would point to Jews who wanted the German parliment to say they were sorry. The Koreans and British wanted the Japanese Emperor and Prime Minister to say they were sorry. Not that any of it has any impact on ones life, it is only an emotional feel good thing to make the other person feel humble and publicly express his mistakes. However, mind you it will be very difficult to stop because if we start going back millennium, we will start saying sorry to one another (the better side to that would mean we would atleast be less arrogant).

re: Syed Ahmed
Thanks for the history bit.

re RR:
yaar I am not offended in the least. I am merely mentioning some obvious flaws in your version of history. If you would like me to be more direct here goes: YOur statements like ``Even though the Muslim rulers did not interfere in the lives of their subjects and did not use force to convert them.`` are wrong. Sikhism`s (which has about 20 million followers worldwide today mainly from Punjab) hitory is marred with conflicts against Muslim rulers. Our 9th Guru Tegh Bahadur was beheaded by Aurangzeb for not converting to Islam. Before that, as torture, uske ladko ko (aged 9 & 11) chinwaa diyaa (built a wall around them, I don`t really know how to say this in English). This was in the 16th century. A gurudwara (Gurudwara Shish Ganj) stands there today. I mentioned this as irrefuatble historical facts. There are tons where we will find different versions of history and it will be your word versus mine. The other `keywords` I mention raise contradicting points to your assumptions.
It is strange that I only mention facts from Sikh history and you brand me a `typical BJP` stalwart Hindu extremist.
THe problem is with these labels. I am asking you to stop seeing large diverse groups of people as `Hindus` and `Muslims`. This is a big mistake. You could go through history (1000 years, 2000 years) and see that these issues were always alive. Just like in contemporary politics in any country ruling parties, opposition parties, ruling classes, oppressed classes clash. It has been happening in the Indian sub-continent for years. Now in each one of these clashes not everybody is scrupolous on every side. THe mistake we make is on the basis of selective history we hold entire groups of co-religionists responsible and accountable for things that they sometimes are not even aware of. Hindus are not one large monolithic group. For that matter, nobody in the Indian sub-continent is. Look at contemporary Pakistani politics. Yes, by and large it consists of only Muslims today, but does that qualify them as a monolithic group. The underhanded politics, the using religion to ones advantage, ethnic, sectarian clashes, etc. continue. Democracy, which arguably could be used as a measure of majority opinion, hasn`t even been in place all the last 50 years.
Now Syed Ahmed has done a good job of putting a summarized version of history for about the last 200 years. If you ( as an individual, as a Muslim)were to get into it and read details (whatever is available) about it you will see all kinds of things that you would condemn, done by people who were Hindu(and other non-Muslims) and people who were Muslim. Now to hold other co-religionists responsible for those acts is not really justified, is it. Even 2 Muslims can`t always agree on religious interpretations of sacred texts, how do you assume that every Muslim agreed on half the things that were done by the few in the ruling classes. THe same is true of Hindus and all the others. Yet we always fought on those issues. Mainly because the people in power exploit this weakness. The Brits are not to blame. We have to try and stop this.
Even at the time of partition there were riots going on. People were trying to count the number of dead Hindus and dead Muslims as a means to determine which group of people had to be held responsible overall. That is flawed reasoning. It isn`t about religion. The British had to doctor up all kinds of numbers ( couldn`t really expect them to keep counting the dead, they just kept them about equal) to try and curb the riots. Riots still happen in India. If you`ve ever been caught in a riot you will know that its not about what you believe. You are either with the `mob` or are a victim. The politics are still very much the same as when the British left. THe constitution is still secular. There are still more Muslims in India (about 15 - 20%) than pakistan. THere are political parties still using Muslims as a monolithic `vote bank` and still other caste based parties rising as the voice of the underclass. There are still co-alitions because in every election there is not one clear majority. The largest minority does not make up the majority. people commit crimes of passion in reaction to crimes of passion, and the vicious circle continues. We don`t have one group of people called `Hindu` that can table your Hindu-Muslim affairs. Check out the election results. Religion is not really the issue here, it can be used to justify anything though.
In terms of your suggestion, of this ``Truth and Reconciliation Commission``. What do you possible hope to achieve with this ? Lets assume we use your version of history (with absolutely no compromises on any ISSUE) and we appoint you as the solitary authority on it. You go through history and find all Hindus (everyone but Muslims, to keep it simple) guilty of everything that is wrong with your life. How then do you deliver justice ? Do you hold the people of today responsible for what their ancestors might have done. You do realize the numerous flaws I am pointing out, right ? How long do you want this to continue ? Possibly forever. Is this how you want us to destroy ourselves because of things our ancestors may have done. And this is happening. Afghanistan has been in a state of war for the last 20 years, God knows how many ``truths and reconciliation committees`` have they gone through.
One fundamental part of my whole reasoning is that ``2 wrongs do not make a right``. If you don`t believe that then happy counting and happy warring to you.
I think we can look at our current polity and see the same exact behaviour our history books point out. I can even see us making the same mistakes. And pakistan doen`t even have Hindus `causing problems for them anymore`.
I have a strange feeling that whenever Indo-Pak talks start they never get past talking of `Hindus` and `Muslims`. In India it is especially ironic since for the last 50 years the ruling govt.(s) have tried to institutinally secualrize the country. Yet when talking to Pakistan we are back to 1000 years ago talking of the same stuff over and over again.
I don`t want to recreate a golden past. I want a brighter future. Do you want this period of history to say ` And Hindus and Muslims kept fighting`. History can only show us
Historically there were Hindus, Muslims and others that fell into every category possible. Murderers, brutal, traitors, wise men, great leaders, suspicious, women beaters, and so on. How will your ``truth and reconciliation commitee`` deliver justice ?
regards
RanaRansher

The animosity oif Hindus & muslims predate the British Raj - it was the relationship between the rulers and their subjects. GRanted most Muslim rulers of India were brutal, nonethless, the concept of Hinduvata has be around for centuries. The last battle of Panipat ( pre-dating the Britishers) was fought along this premise.
Also please remember that the Muslim rule in INdia was inherently indirect wheras the local vassals ( ie Maharajas) paid levies to the Badashah in Delhi. The big difference in the ruling polity occurred during Shah Jehan`s reign between the supporters of Dara-Shikoh and Alamgir. Rousing th e religious right of his time, Alamgir ( later Aurganzeb ) immposed direct rule ofthe vassal states. The political upheal and the state sponsorship of Islamic missionaries, created great social and political upheaval in Punjab, Rajasthan and the Deccan Plateau -and eventually led to the disintegration of the Mughal empire. All the conflicts in the post Alamgir period were roused by religious passions, the conflicts between the Afghans and the Sikhs, Rajputs and the Mughals in Delhi, The marathas, the Jats and the subsequent sacking Agra and Delhi. By 1857 when Muslim power was finally crushed in Lucknow and Delhi, the British started favoring the Hindu underclass to gain political backing from the locals. Incidentally, the mutiny of 1857 was crushed primarily by the troops from Punjab and the BOmbay/Madras presidency aginst the mutineers, - predominantly the Benagalis and Afghan descendants thereof , and the native troops from Delhi and the United Provinces, and Bihar. Ironically the troops on both sides were predominantly Muslim.

Re: RanaRansher

I`m sorry if the historical facts offended your sense of righteousness. And I`m sorry again to say that your`s is a very typical BJP stalwart response that is a standard for extremist Hindus. I wonder who doctored up, and is still trying to doctor up your history books? Anyway, other than ridiculing historical truths, you don`t know exactly how to counter the facts.

YOU need to go back and read some history sir, not I. I have a rather realistic understanding of both the Indian history and the contemporary international politics. Besides, in your emotionally charged mind, you probably didn`t read exactly what I was saying. Before accusing me of parroting the establishment. If you know a little bit about Pakistan, you`d know that my stance on India-Pakistan relations is as radically opposed to the establishment view as it gets.

I firmly believe in the reconciliation between the two countries and establishment of normal relations. But my belief is that only when both countries go through the ``Truth and Reconciliation Commission`` of their own, that the old animosities will end. If you don`t want such a commission, then forget about any headway in the right direction. Unless the core problem of avoiding the truth is solved on both sides, people in both countries will continue to suffer.

The ONLY way is to respect where we are today. India and Pakistan are two separate nations. Each one`s biggest problem is economics. Poverty, illitracy are the biggest social evils in either country. We have to stop being prisoners of the past and grapple with the bigger problems each nation has. Better economies are the only way bilateral trade, cross-cultural exchanges, Indo-Pak cricket (God ! the religionists took that away) can be pursued.
History should only teach us that there is no finality in human affairs; there is not a static perfection and an umimprovable wisdom to be achieved. History cannot be `undone`. 2 wrongs never make a right (regardless of what you personally believe). If you start objectively reading the history of the Indian sub-continent (from all sources/perspectives) you will very soon realize that there were some events today you may approve of and some you may vehemently oppose. However, you cannot cleanly split these up by religion. That is the biggest mistake we have been making.

re: RR
You need to move past the fairy tale versions of history your theologians have doctored up. For starters read up on some keywords like Sikhs, Guru Tegh Bahadur, Aurangzeb, Guru Gobind Singh, Iqbal, Maulana Mohd. Ali. Read up on Pakistani Muslims in Britain in terms of education. Some of your myths will get shattered real quick. To go into your entire reply and show how ridiculous your historical perspective is would take too much time.
As far as making compromises on every SINGLE ISSUE, thats not such a bad thing, is it. Doesn`t secularism offer a great alternative solution. What are your personal experiences of living in a secular country ?
Also Quit blaming the British for everything. THe Brits have been gone for 50 years only to be replaced by local-Angrez (at least in India, where not a whole lot has changed demographically since the British have left. There are still more Muslims than Pakistan and the constitution is still secular). Your entire reply reeks of blaming others and having no accountability yourself.

regards
RanaRansher

Re: Udayakumar

Its a very well written article and you certainly do make your point about the two countries not ``talking.`` But you somehow want people of both countries to to ``forget about the past.`` I read somewhere that ``those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.``

If you really want the two countries to have friendly relations than you must be ready to face the ghosts of the past with full courage, for unless you acknowledge their presence you cannot exorcise them. The problem with us is that we have turned the ghosts into ``Aaseb.`` The fear this term evokes in the superstitious people of the subcontinent is well known. And, as any social scientist or psychologist would probably tell you, fear most commonly is the cause of suspicion, distrust and hatred. You ``talk`` about getting rid of these suspicions, distrust and hatred, and yet, you are not ready to deal with root of the problem by acknowledging the ghosts.

Let`s talk about these ``ghosts`` for a minute. Muslim invaders attacked, occupied and then ruled India for about six centuries. Imagine the frustration and helplessness that the majority of Indians must have felt back then for not being able to kick them out. In addition, the Muslim saints and preachers converted Hindu massess to Islam and created a permanent divide between the people. Even though the Muslim rulers did not interfere in the lives of their subjects and did not use force to convert them, still, their mere presence was more then enough.

In this background, came the British. Their early expeditions included linguists and social scientists who studied India for years and years and came to understand the means by which they could take over the ``the golden bird.`` They successfully exploited the situation by pitting Hindus against Muslims and in the meantime established themselves as rulers. And the term ``divide and rule`` did come from them, did it not?

They specially didn`t like Muslims for they were the former rulers of India and could fight back. Plus, because their own religion, Christianity, was in direct competition with Islam elsewhere in the world. So they took care of that by keeping Muslims down at the bottom of the social ladder during their rule. Obviously, it didn`t do any good when it comes to Hindu-Muslim relations. In addition, the Hindus saw it as their first chance to really set their own destiny and cooperated with the British initially.

All of this set the momentum for the later freedom movement. Muslims found themselves outnumbered and outranked among the majority Hindus. Their nostalgia for glory and their resentment to the British system cost them dearly in the fields of eduaction and employment. They ended up facing two rivals: The British and the Hindus.

The fact that the Hindus really wanted to finally govern their own country without ANY competition caused them to suspect the Muslims. And they were not wrong. Had India been a single country today, close to 40% of its population would have been Muslim. That would have meant compromises on EVERY SINGLE issue. Plus, Muslims could theoretically form a government with other minority coalition partners. That meant defeat in the guise of victory once the British had left. So, the Hindus began excluding Muslims from important decisions and eventually the rift resulted in the formation of Muslim League.

The British were no fools. They knew that even after mutual suspicion and distrust, Hindus and Muslims shared a long history, a common language, and cultural heritage. And that even after their ``divide and rule`` policy worked magically, their was a chance that once the Hindus and Muslims got their own countries, their animosities would be overcome by their shared heritage. If the Indian sub-continent were to take a common stand in world affairs, the balance of power might have shifted in the wrong direction. So the evil geniuses thought of a not so unique solution to this problem: Kashmir. The rest is history. You know something? It worked.

My solution: Make Kashmir an independent country. But there`s that old Pakistani conpiracy theorist in me that says that an independent Kashmir would become a client state and a military base for a Western power to keep an eye on the two new nuclear powers, the oil-rich central Asia, and the future superpower, China. But however much I despise such a scenario, if that is the only thing that can be acceptable to India and Pakistan, then fine. As long as the countries begin spending their resources of their people instead of their armies, I`m happy.

Uh, sorry about the long response. I just got carried away.

Extremely well written, illuminating and evocative article. I just went through it, and I will have to read it again and think about it before I give my detailed comments.

However, I wanted to make an observation. Regardless of how pessimistic the opinions of different diplomats and scholars are about the present and the future of Indo-Pakistani relations, I see your article being indicative of a clearly optimistic future.

If, with sufficient introspection and care, it is possible for us to IDENTIFY the causes of Indo-Pakistani estrangement then we have already de-bunked the popularly held notions about the impossibility of a normal relationship. Simply by putting them out on the table as explicable socio-political causes, whose time evolution is understandable in terms of different historical processes, the issue becomes not that of an irrational national hatred, but of two parties with a list of mutually inflicted grieviances, that can be discussed and resolved, at least in principle.

I would also like to say that it is not surprising that our leaders are habitually prophets of doom when it comes to Indo-Pakistani relations. Their power is derived from this antagonism, and they are simply acting to preserve their interests, which do not necessarily coincide with those of the people at large.