India-Kashmir-Pakistan: Perceptions on the History of Partition Brat#

I read your post. Actually I never bothered about why people got converted and to me, in a way it does not matter. To me it doesn`t even matter if all of them get converted. I believe that, when one two person interact, both will be influenced by each other.

Here is a different point of view on why the temples were destroyed. It even says Aurangzeb ordered a temple to be protected. In case you are interested the link is attached below. Front line is a good magazine and it some time carries very good anti-sangh articles.

http://www.the-hindu.com/fline/fl1726/17260700.htm

What we think about Pakistani doesn`t matter if it is in disagreement with what Pakistani`s think about themselves.

Vijay

India-Kashmir-Pakistan: Perceptions on the History of Partition Taikonaut#

I can discuss computer only with people who understand logic or for that matter understand anything at all.

One hand, you get irritated at the thought that you may look like a Hindu or have hindu ancestor and on the other you call other fanatics. ( I bet you must look like a Hindu and that must be just irritating you.)

I think now you are taking some hashish seriously. I have never heard that Hindutva fantatics saying that ``Jinnah did not ask for Pakistan``. Any logical person would conclude that, from what you posted as reply to my question. If you cannot understand the above logic, don`t even try your hand at computers.

Some say when people get old, childhood returns. They become poor in logic and start believing in Santaclause again.

Madeline Albright said once that ``Pakistan is not able to maintain democracy because of India`` (this was before Mushy took over, I think). She inherited her love for Pakistan from her dad, that is what some people say. (This was a figure of speech, don`t try and look for books on genetics now to show that love cannot be inherited).

Realize that both Jinnah and Advani were playing political stunts and are not good people. They are same (I don`t respect either of them). Both took advantage of some existing ground reality. You may be only interested in History and so perhaps cannot understand the current events like Advani. If you find Pakistanis with all their anti-hindu rhetoric reasonable, Jinnah reasonable and Gandhi and Nehru as cunning politician, you need to work on yourself.

When you make extra-ordinary claim, you have to give extra-ordinary proof. Just saying that, in some two speeches you did not find Jinnah asking for Pakistan is not an extra-ordinary proof. It does not even a proove that he did not ask for it.

The above was a lesson in logic, a necessary element before I can talk and discuss programming. If you have any doubt about the above logic feel free to ask. If I have time, I will try to help you.

Vijay

India-Kashmir-Pakistan: Perceptions on the History of Partition taikonaut#

What kind of ``hasish`` can make a person think that Pakistan was not asked or created by Jinnah?

What kind of ``hasish`` would make some one get irritated at the thought that one of his ancestor might be a Hindu?

Vijay

India-Kashmir-Pakistan: Perceptions on the History of Partition Replies to some who addressed me directly or indirectly.

jagdeep 36#

I am guilty of starting the history at an arbitrary point. Read my #62 to realize that it is not me who consider Pakistanis outsiders. It is they themselves.

Regarding Aryan Invasion theory (assuming it is true), they were wrong in coming and destroying some body else civilization. After hundreds of year, they integrated with the local people somehow, if not then at least now. They are not continuing to preach hatredness or trying to establish their separate identity. I think we all have lost our identity and do not have the same identity we had say 1000yrs ago. I should not say lost but ``changed``.

Once you are born in a place, which is multi-cultural, multi-religious you should accept all this as part of your own culture. It was the Pakistani Ambassador to USA whom I heard saying, ``we are different from Indians and have different culture.`` Not some religious fanatic, I assume he is not one.

I hope you get the drift. If Pakistan and Indians are friendly, will Partition a big issue? I don`t think so.

Omarphoenix 51#

``Hindus are soft``. Guess what, hindus will think themselves of normal people. So people who are not ``soft`` like them will be termed as ``violent`` and ``aggressive`` and tendency to be a ``terrorist``. Just trying to show you how ``wrong thoughts`` can lead to ``wrong conclusions``. I think people are same, yes some culture is very suppressive of aggresive behaviour. I think Indian culture is one such but if you take %wise I will not be surprised to find agressive Indians in some other fields. Pakistani cricketers certainly seem more agressive than Indian but I am not sure if Indira Gandhi can be called ``soft``.

For your other part of the post:

Think of a different situation. Americans came and killed redindians. They also practiced slavery. Now they are ashamed of those things. They preach those things to be wrong. Will it be fair to punish them for the same things continuously? I don`t think so. Once they accept their mistake and are ashamed of it, we should forget it.

You may not know, but Indians are ashamed and accepted their wrong as wrongs (sati and caste system for example.) They like to live as one.

The difference with Pakistanis is they still glorify their wrong as bravery or just in a strange way justify it by calling Hindu ``cowards`` (this is from my past interaction at chowks). They STILL preach the hatredness. They don`t seem to think that Indians have been wronged in anyway.

This to me in no way gives confidence that ``Kashmir`` will solve the problem. Pakistanis will be very conncerned about the Indian Muslims living with the ``bad`` Hindus. Hindus who are casteist practice sati and what not. They do not realize that India has come a long way from that past, even if it has not completely corrected itself.

Krashid 63#

Partition can be viewed in many ways. You have a perception of it and I have one. Your is that of people saying we want to leave separately so we have a right to partition. Do you understand my perception? See some of the Bangladeshi`s perception if you want. I have posted the link to them before.

tahmed #65

I think opposing views helps. The views on Jinnah or Ghouri was not a surprise. But the admiration of Aurangzeb was. The deep hatredness for Hindus was a surprise. I think Indians will then take a more realistic view. I think it is all part of the way one has been taught so when somebody expresses his/her hatredness I think it is because he/she thinks the other guy is bad. I have even defended Aurangzeb to my Indian`s friend in my past. My argument was ``He might be thinking that he is indeed helping the Hindus``. I don`t believe that now but I was open enough to think like that.

There are some good things which I did not mention. Like Nawaz Sharieff was the first Pakistani to say in his election campaign about improving relaitionship with India instead of enemity(read in Indian newspaper). The warmth with which Lahore bus was received pleasantly surprised me. Just because Kargil happened it doesn`t mean I will forget the warmth. But because of Kargil I certainly think what kind of people are in real charge of Pakistan. Nawaz Sharief must have been always corrupt but after Kargil he lost support of all Pakistanis, it seemed and appeared to the Pakistanis very corrupt.

Ylh never bothers me (to an extent I like him and think people like him won`t be a problem as long as they are sincere like him too).

taikonaut 69#

I laughed after reading your post, you really seemed irritated. I was not giving a lesson on history. It is the common man, ignorant of history who decides our fate. The common man, just gets an overview of the History. I used the word ``perception`` hope you understood it. Do you want to make everyone a student of history?

Won`t the casteist brahmin who cannot accept a lower caste blood not wrong? Should he be not criticised? Do pakistani behaviour will be like a Casteist Brahmin? If so, should it not be criticised or is it justified because a casteist Brahmin does that?

I did not get your point.

You behaved as I would expect a Pakistani to behave (I don`t know if you are or you are not.)

Masd 72#

If people think like you, there won`t be much problem in this world.

Yasar arfan #78

Regarding ``foreigners`` Look at my post #62.

See how taikonaut compares ``converted muslims`` with restpect to a casteist Brahmin in #69.

You look at partition as your right not to leave with us. I look at partition as where a family was divided and deceived. A family was broken by exploiting its weakness. I was trying to say how we think of it as an injustice. We cannot agree on partition. Indians have to live with Indian Muslims so it is for our PRESENT and FUTURE that we have to beleive that we can live with them. Unlike Pakistanis, who have to believe that Hindus are bad only to justify the PAST. If you believe a Bangaldeshis perception more than Indians read #30. I am not trying to give lesson on history but on our perception. I am not trying to say ``I am right and you are wrong``. I am trying to say ``The facts can be interpreted in my way too by a reasonable person.``

Also see my replies above to Omarphoneix, regarding past wrongs of Hindus.

Brat 32#

Thankx for asking me to appreciate the chowk editors. I should have appreciated them at least for accepting my article. I missed that point, since I am not excited about chowk in that way anymore.

India-Kashmir-Pakistan: Perceptions on the History of Partition This is the story behind this article. It is difficult to remember the exact story but this is more or less correct. I needed a break and take my time to remember why I wrote what I wrote. It has been very long.

My view of Pakistanis as from Indian education (which I mostly still believe):

I thought of them as Indians gone astray. They are basically Indian. Their culture and behaviour and everything is like Indian or very similar to say Indian muslims. I thought of Jinnah as a communal leader, who for gaining power used religion.

I can never think of Akbar as a non-Indian. He was as much Indian as Mahrana Pratap whom he used to fight. If you allow me to illogical for a moment, I can very easily disassociate myself from Aurangzeb but not from Akbar. As far as I know, both are equally ``foreigner``.

My view of Pakistanis after I came to US:

Accidently I came upon the pakistani newspaper dawn. I started reading it regularly. It was fun at the begining. My curiosity and belief that all human believe think that they are right, made me look at it closely. I started reading the letters written to dawn`s editor. At first, I became more excited. I thought friendship can be developed. I even wrote a letter to dawn`s editor saying, ``Pakistan developing all weapons can be good. Imagine if India and Pakistan become friends. They might have a very powerful military.`` I was naive. As I continued reading dawn, I started seeing their hatredness. That in me started generating hatredness for Pakistanis. So I decided that, the newspaper is harming me more than doing anything good and I stopped reading it. I did not like the hatredness it generated in me.

I also searched on the web for Pakistani websites. I came across their viewpoints.

After all these this was my conclusions:

1)Indians who think that India and Pakistan can be friendly are naive(I was pleasantly surprised at the warmth with which Lahore Bus was received.)

2)Pakistanis hate Hindus/Indians.

3)They will hate the very idea, that they might have hindu blood in them.

4)They think themselves as of outsider. If you try to tell them otherwise, it will offend them. If you tell them that they are like Indians, they might scream at you. If you want to make them more mad, say them that hey they have genes of hindus ancestor.

5)They admire Aurangzeb.

6) The very idea of saying that we are same, also generates insecurity in them. They think we are going to unite, something they hate. They really hate to live in a place with Hindu majority. They despise it by saying ``we have to live under Hindu`s rule``.

I cannot remember the exact things that led me to the above conclusions. ( I still believe that the above is true for most if not all Pakistanis. I will be glad to know that MOST Pakistanis think otherwise). Now when I discuss/write on a Pakistani board, I thought it is better to use their point of view as much as possible, may be I am wrong.

Then I came across an Indian newspaper talking about chowk. That was in an article, where some Pakistani Professor wants to write a joint history book. He did not like the idea of web, because he thought it will become like another chowk.

So I visited chowk.

I thought they want peace so do us, so what is the problem. I realised that, they feel that they have been severly wronged. They don`t realise that we feel we have been wronged too. So I named the article PERCEPTION. The indian sense of injustice can be best surmrised by the President`s word when he said ``Indians have done a great sacrifice for peace, by accepting partition.`` (not the exact word, but the sense is same). I also wanted Indians to stop being naive, and lower their expectations.

If you read the article carefully and are smart you will see the traits I mentioned above. My careful use of the word Pakistani Muslims twice.(I was very careful with the word Muslim and I don`t know how the mistake appeared. I had the copy of the article and I checked with it. I had indeed, searched all occurence of the word Muslim and made sure that I am not using it wrongly before I submitted it. Pakistani may think that of as very trivial). I get offended when somebody criticises Pakistani, because I think of them as my own and so I reacted to defend them. I mentioned that in the article. But here people see what they want to see, and it becomes worse when somebody new at web-interaction writes. I am sure even from this post itself, somebody can reply I think of them as outsider. I am learning to ignore them.

I thought that the very idea of Mushy looking like an Indian Hindu might offend them.

I wanted to tell them, how I feel, and still take pot-shots at them.

I also get very offended when they say that ``we have a different culture``, but I am helpless their. They don`t realise that by calling themselves ``outsider`` they are making it worse.

Now some of you may want to correct the ``PERCEPTIONS``. To you I will tell an argument which was used centuries ago by a Greek Philoshoper. ``Say there are two objects. If we disagree, that which one is heavy, we can easily meausre the weight and rest our disagreement. The only reason we are disagreeing is because we don`t have any such measurment scheme.``

So my point is, it is not necessary to AGREE to the PERCEPTIONS just understand that other has that perception. Forget Partition, that also means Pakistani forgetting that they have a claim on Kashmir. A cut an paste from the article for the sceptics:

``For the sake of peace, we should accept the result of Partition as it is. Partition was a big injustice to India, but let it be. ``

I am sure, as usual most will not understand or mis-understand what I wrote above. I think I should be grateful to the editors, for accepting the article, they must have understood something in it.

I was debating to post or not to post. I decided, let me try once more.

India-Kashmir-Pakistan: Perceptions on the History of Partition jntuce99#

See my reply #10, and you will understand I am not guilty of the charges you are accusing me of. :-).

Sherdil#

I am ready to listen to you if you have a point and want to tell me. We had this discussion on Partition long back on chowk, and I don`t remember you seeing you then, when personality were discussed. If you want to do it, I would like it to be done differently this time. The bigger picture should not be lost in minute details.

Here is one way to go about it.

Read http://www.shobak.org/partitio.htm .

What it says can be divided into six parts:

1)Politician were using TNT for political gain.

2)The Hindu-Muslim problem was in reality, bigger than they thought. They had hit a jack pot.

3)They ante up the rhetoric.

4)Realize that the rhetoric was outpacing the reality.

5)Make the reality worse to match the rhetoric.

6)Partition was inevitable result.

One can argue 6) was only result of 2). Other can argue 6) was result of 1,2,3,4 and 5.

Now the problem is of assigning importance to each cause. Like say some would say 2) was 80% of the cause and some would say 1) was 80% of the cause.

One would say without 2), 6) was impossible. Other will say 2) existed but was improving. Without 1) and 5), 6) was impossible.

The other problem is some would say 1) was not for political gain but for show the reality.

Other would say it was opposite.

Some would justify using the Hindu-muslim tension by saying Gandhi used religion too. Others will say Gandhi was not harming the society. There is a difference between religious and communal person. Gandhi was religious.

I don`t want to loose the sight of the forest while pursuing the trees.

An example (Indian referred as I, and Paki as P)

I: 1) was for political gains.

P: 1) Was to show the existing reality. Hindus were not understanding the reality.

I: Yeah right. Jinnah changed his tack after loosing an election.

P: After loosing an elecition and seeing the behaiviour of Nehru. Nehru was arrogant.

I: Nehru maybe arrogant, but not all Hindus. Nehru was secular.

P: Yeah right. Nehru did not allow his own daughter to marry a non-hindu.

I: It would have been tough to convince Indian public. Anyway he agreed after, a token change in name. Even Muslims supported Nehru in the electoral process. He only lost, after the atmosphere got communal.

So you see how we forgot the main point here. Which was wether 1) came after 2) or before it. We will be chasing a different tree now.

The replies won`t be so short as I have shown here. Don`t assume what I know.

If you think, that I cannot defend my point of view you will be kidding yourself. I don`t doubt your sincerity though.

The main problem is assigning proportion to each of the cause in an objective way.

India-Kashmir-Pakistan: Perceptions on the History of Partition taikonaut#

Read my previous postings as replies to better understand what I am trying to say. You will realize when I had posted this article.

Vijay

India-Kashmir-Pakistan: Perceptions on the History of Partition Now I think chowk editors are having fun with my article.

This is the email I sent.

Now saying Muslims(Pakistani), will only imply that I mean all muslims are pakistani.

Can you please correct it to say like this:

``Pakistani Muslims came and conquered Hindus``

Vijay

India-Kashmir-Pakistan: Perceptions on the History of Partition sherdil#

I was writing an overview of history. It is called perception. Not the whole details. It doesn`t mean I know only that much of history. I know more about history than I wrote.

I am sure, if you look close enough and try to understand you will find and see Advani is a good man. So are the RSS and other Hindu Fundamentalists. They have a point as Jinnah had.

Regarding Kashmir, this is my thought:

Partition was an injustice done to India. How can an unfair thing be done fairly? Partition was a political process so all political stunts are acceptable. Be satisfied with who got what.

Forget Partition, that to me means also forget that Kashmir became part of India.

I probably should have highligthed the injustices that Pakistani (not the common Pakistani, but its leaders.)

Here is the list.

1)They divided India into finally three country. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. This is the biggest INJUSTICE.

2)They Preached hatredness for Hindus and admire kings who were cruel to hindus. This hatredness has bitter the relationship.

3)The jehadi training camps.

Before you go on details about why partition was done see some of the links I posted below of Bangladeshi Muslims.

One of way looking at India will be looking at Bangladeshi muslims. I have posted before the sites which gave their views.

If you want I can also give you a link to a book review of Ayesha Jalal.

If you are only bothered about the few muslims in Kashmir, what stops you not to be bothered about million other muslims in India?

What I read about Pakistani was doing a search on the websites and looking at what the Pakistani`s say in their websites. I was at mercy of the search engines. Some reflected, superiority, some quoted Jinnah 1947 speech, and so on.

Yesterday I saw one more stuff, which made me laugh, :

``Haske liye Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan``.

(Laughed and Took Pakistan, Will fight and Take Hindustan)

I think it was sort of joke, but the pakistani said, this saying is heard in Pakistan. If somebody can laugh at partition, he should be sent to asylum I think.

India-Kashmir-Pakistan: Perceptions on the History of Partition sameerjb# majd#

A good place to look for unbias I would think would be Bangladeshi Muslims. I searched for some of their site and what they think of Partition. One site I had read long ago, and I tried to find another one.

http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/history/overview_akram.html (basically says communal separtatists proposed the two nation theory)

http://www.shobak.org/partitio.htm (EXCELLENT SITE)

This Basically says (My understanding):

1)Politician were using TNT for political gain.

2)The Hindu-Muslim problem was in reality, bigger than they thought. They had hit a jack pot.

3)They ante up the rhetoric.

4)Realize that the rhetoric was outpacing the reality.

5)Make the reality worse to match the rhetoric.

6)Partition was inevitable result.

One can use 2) to justify partition. Other can say 5) shows that 2) was not good enough to justify partition. SameerJb I would be interested in see how you interpret the article.

So what I think of Bangladeshis Muslim supporting partition. They were used as a politically. They seem to say that themselves in a way now.

ajeebmjeeb#

I thought Kashmiris are the most who are suffering. Regarding Indian sufferings, well sometime you get punished without your fault. In a way you can say it India is also being punished by God.

India-Kashmir-Pakistan: Perceptions on the History of Partition I checked with the original version of what I wrote. I thought I was very careful with the word ``Muslim`` and ``Pakistani Muslim`` as you would see I have used it in many place. Somehow the word ``Pakistani`` got removed from one of the place, not sure mine or editors mistake.

This is the letter I sent to editors.

Thanx for publishing it so late. Is it usual to publish this article so

late. I checked the version of article published to my original version,

that I have saved. In the section ``History as I see in short``, my original

version read

``Pakistani Muslims came and conquered Hindus``, can I know why it has been

edited to remove the word Pakistani from it. If it is a mistake please

correct it.

Thankx

India-Kashmir-Pakistan: Perceptions on the History of Partition masd#5

Thankx for showing me the contradiction. The original article I wrote, did not have that contradiction. I have requested the editors to correct it. I had originally written ``Pakistani muslims came and conquered India.``

Regarding wether they are alien or not, I will believe you whatever Pakistani says. See another post #4 contradicting what you say. The main problem is the non-criticism of ``foreign rulers`` who did great injustices to the ``localites``. I am not sure if trust can grow without fixing that. Their being alien or not is not a big problem.

SameerJb#

I like your postings too. What can I reply? I am not sure what thinking you are asking me to change, hey but I think I will get enough flames to never write.

Regarding IU, I think of AU (asian Union). I think it took europe 100s of years of power struggle before they realised that they should be united. I am not sure how long it will take to change that.

I tried to say in my article, is partition was unfair. Forget how it was done. Forget that India got Kashmir. You see the problem.

Pankaj8#

I wish I could help it otherwise. I had written it long back. Which assumptions you find wrong?

I would be interested, if you can share.

jntuce99#

If you assume Partition as fair process then things are different. I don`t. I think it was politically motivated.

I was trying to address Kashmir problem, with regards to Pakistan. There was a period when a popularly elected Chief minister was their and peace was there. Now India is at disadvantage as that is not the case. If Pakistan did not interfere, and Kashmiri wanted to secede, they might have taken a peaceful path to protest. The suffering are compounded by violence. Sure India would have imprisoned some of the leader, even if Kashmiri protested peacefully, but if the protest was wide scale, India had to concede at end.

India-Kashmir-Pakistan: Perceptions on the History of Partition I wrote this and submitted on 9th July 2000(I found the date from the acknowledgement letter [by chowk editors]in my Inbox). I was new to chowk then, and did not relaize how things are interpreted here.

I know better know and would have known how somethings will be mis-interpreted and would have highlited some things.

1)All muslims are foreigners. This is NOT what I am saying. I said ``Many hindus also got converted to Muslims`` (Do you notice the word Many???). Now the questions is which one are converted and which one are ``foreigners``. My policy on that one is the muslim person decide. If he/she thinks he/she is converted, then trust him. If he/she thinks that he/she is ``foreigner`` then trust him too. If we don`t have a proof for a person origin, it is better to trust him/her.

Two of the Indian muslim friends I have think differently. One thinks himself of as foreigner and other a converted Hindu, and I do not question that .

I put that in quotes, because I am not sure if you can call someone who came 1000 years back as ``foreigner``.

2)When I am saying God is punishing for Kashmir. I don`t mean to imply that everything bad, like earthquake is happening because God is punishing. A westerner when he sees it will say that we hate and fight, that is why we don`t succeed. It is just another way of saying that God is punishing us for our hatredness.

3) When I say Pakistani wants peace and Indians wants peace I am talking about the Indians and Pakistani people who really want peace. After Kargil things have changed a lot. Before Kargil, most Indian who wanted Peace would have liked to live together. It doesn`t mean that there were not Indians who wanted peace and did not want to unite. I felt that Pakistanis said `` give us Kashmir and leave us alone``

My assumption, which can be wrong is, that Bangladeshi and Indians have better relationship than Pakistanis and Indians. The reason being is one is not associated with ``foreigners``. I know Indians also helped in creation of Bangladesh, but few of the things I read from Bangladesh or hear from Bangladeshis doesn`t seem to indicate the deep animosity which is reflected in India-Pak. It doesn`t mean that Bangladeshi muslims like Hindus or anything but the degree of mis-trust is not so deep. Who associates Pakistanis with ``foreigners``? I think both Indians and Pakistanis do that.

India-Kashmir-Pakistan: Perceptions on the History of Partition Kabuliwallah#

Certainly seems to me a joke. This was written and submitted long back, when I first visted these site (months and months back), when I did not know the chowkwallahs.

I am surprised that they published it now. I thought the lead week was few weeks and so many months.

Anyway you can tell me which part you feel like joke might help me.

The Mandir Mirage Farzna Versey#

There are two type of suspicion:

a)Religion i.e. Mine is better, yours is worse etc. It will only go away with education I think.

b)Political mistrust and power struggle.

Think of a hindu person, who shows some soft corner to RSS and BJP. He further defends some of their points. How much confidence will a Indian Muslim have in him? He might save/protect muslims with his life but people who do not know him personally will not trust him a lot.

Now (using shankar`s word) flip the coin. How much confidence will a Indian have on a person who shows soft-corner for Pakistanis? They don`t hide their disdain for Hindus. The percentage of Hindus have fallen their dramatically and hindus have to keep christain name. Further more, they have all bitterness for India. A pakistani soldier interviewing on BBC said ``Hindus are our enemies.``

Now please don`t tell me Indian muslims started developing love for Pakistan only after BJP became popular. It was the reverse.

(It is not one individual action of a person which shows his bias, it is the sum total. This is true for BJP/RSS and Indian muslims.)

Will Gavaskar be joyed at India`s loss, even if he appreciates Pakistanis? There are subtle differences between the celebration with joy and appreciation which people who write should be smart enough to see. (You are consistent with your inability to see things through multiple angles, so I don`t hold it against you. For example, you don`t realise that some may think you are belittling Indian God by using it as a piece of art only. I don`t think like that. As far as appreciation of art goes, Ghazals and Shayari, though not related to Islam, are, I assume, originated from Urdu. If you don`t find Indian appreciating Ghazals and Shayaris in your neighborhood, better move to a different part of India.)

The Mandir Mirage Farzana Versey #560

Regarding wishing on Id:

I always thought that major festivals (of both hindus and muslims) shoule be inclusive. I don`t know how it can be done. One way to do is to distribute sweets (vegetarian) during the festivals among each other houses. I am sure people will reciprocate to each other and things will sweeten with time.

I had heard one such incidence where a muslim had sent the sweets (or something) across to Hindu neighbors for the first time on a Muslim festival and the hindu person who told me liked the guestures. I was not personally involved so I don`t know what happened.

Hindus can also start it, but I as Hindu feel uncomfortable. The reason is I don`t know how they are going to react. Am I doing something that is prohibited in their religion? Do they want festivals to be all inclusive or they want to keep it to themselves. Some group feel threatened by inclusion. You know what I mean.

Why the points about Majority Indian muslim need to be underscored:

The best people to criticise Indian muslims who support Pakistan on their victory is Indian Muslims. I have not heard any Indian Muslim leader do that. Indeed not even from common Indian muslims. Only from some common Indian Muslims that they don`t behave like that as a defence. Other Indians feel that they need to be criticised and when they do that, they feel the need to stress that they are not criticising all the Indian muslims. I know it doesn`t look nice but there is a saying ``Kicchad mein kapda ganta hota hai`` (clothes get dirty in mud. Going to that topic, is like going to the mud. Sometime we have to go to the mud.).

Indpendent point#

I think politician use the Ram issue for votes. I at the same time feel that Ram brith place is very important for Hindus.

Here is another seemingly one-sided story:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/dec/26arvind.htm

Can you tell why Shabudin stresses for a non-british record? Britisher wanted to divide and rule, but they/westerner have basically decided all what we read in history.