Intimacies Remapped Harish,

Am waiting for the next part. It is amazing how similar my childhood experiences, growing up in Hyderabad among multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-lingual friends, are to the ones related in this article. And how ridiculous our reaction then to the Babri Masjid demolition seems now. As 7th grade students, we were just glad to get a whole week off as curfew was imposed in the city. My parents were worried sick and we couldnt understand why.

On a different note you write:

``Chachi, the wife of the man whose husband sold cigarettes and beedis, would give us the sweets made on Eid.``

The circumventing, unnecessarily complex language and sentence structure you used throughout the article was getting to me, but that sentence put me off for a while. You are a journalist, come on, you can do better.

regards,

Kabuli

Let’s Play Cricket ``The BJP led NDA had no qualms about asking Pakistan to change fixtures during the 2004 tour.``

``In 2004 we were not happy about playing in Karachi and Peshawar and they gracefully granted our wish.``

Kader Bhai,

we did play in Karachi and Peshawar. ODIs maybe, but we did play. In the same spirit PCB, could relent and play in Ahmedabad, if not a test, then a ODI.

The entire drama is, was and will be ridiculous if you ask me. Punjab is the cradle of fundamentalism and anti-Indian army in Pakistan. Yet we played 3 ODIs and 3 tests in Punjab. But we had qualms about playing in Karachi (where most people have relatives in India) and Peshawar.

In a way I`m glad PCB is against playing in Ahmedabad, not for political reasons, but for cricketing reasons. Ahmedabad pitch is one of the flattest and boring pitches in the country and most of the matches there end in a draw. Yet almost every series played in India, Ahmedabad is alloted one test match. On top of that the other two stadiums in Gujarat, Rajkot and Baroda are given at least one one-dayer. Gujarat gets more than its fair share of matches and it is about time other centres in the country that have actually produced cricketers (Pathan is a recent phenomenon and we`ve only had mediocre wicketkeepers) like Hyderabad and Bangalore get more matches. As a Hyderabadi I`m proud of our Pataudis, Jaisimhas, Azhars and Laxmans and our floodlit stadium. Yet Hyderabad is not a test center. We rarely even get a ODI.

Anyways, heres to hoping for a cracker of a series. Best regards

Kabuli

Documenting the Pain of 1984 for the benefit of Romair`s Knowledge

http://www.webcom.com/hrin/parker/ahmadi.html

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION IN PAKISTAN: THE AHMADI CASE AT THE SUPREME COURT

A Commentary by Karen Parker, J.D.
for International Educational Development
Humanitarian Law Project
A Non-governmental organization at the United Nations

http://www.thepersecution.org/case/case004.html

Violent mob attacks Ahmadiyya Mosque, sets it on fire after destroying it.

SHEKHUPURA - Police officials are standing alert outside a burned worship place of Ahmadis, destroyed by the villagers.Sayyedwala: Sunday August 26, 2001: An Ahmadiyya Mosque in town Sayyedwala, District Sheikhupura, about 100 Km west of Lahore, was attacked and destroyed by a violent mob of Hundreds of Orthodox Muslims. The incident occurred during the evening when Ahmadis were watching the live Satellite transmission of their annual convention held in Germany. The mob surrounded the two houses where Ahmadis gathered and started chanting anti-Ahmadiyya slogans full of abuses. Soon some of them headed toward the Ahmadiyya Mosque, ransacked and destroyed it completely, and set it on fire.

Instead of providing protection to small number of Ahmadis in town, police locked them up in the name of protective custody and did nothing to disperse the mob.

The situation remained tense for two days before returning to so-called normal but Ahmadis of Sayyedwala are still under great stress and fear. It is still unclear if a case has been registered or not against the attackers or the mullahs who instigated the mob.

Excerpts from media about the incident are reproduced below:
BBC Online News - Religious clash in Pakistani town
Daily Dawn - Ahamdis` place of worship set on fire
Daily Dawn - Punjab Constabulary deployed in Syedwala: Attack on Ahmadis
Daily Dawn - Mazdak - Another day, another atrocity by Syed Irfan Husain
Daily Dawn - Features - Appeasing the fanatics by Lahori
Daily Dawn - Letters to the Editor - Syedwala incident: role of the police


http://www.thepersecution.org/hrcp/hrcp03.html

http://www.ichrdd.ca/english/commdoc/publications/demDev/pakistan/pakistanddeng7.html

http://www.hrcp-web.org/Curfew_Gilgit.cfm

The Middle Kingdom Wallas re: # 148

How could Buddhism not be a savior of low-castes, when the Buddha and his sangha preached compassion, peace and ahimsa? Wasn`t that what the low-castes needed? By all means, overwhelmingly it was a savior of the low-castes if it enabled them to live with respect and without fear. The canonical works may have been penned by ex-Brahmins. The moment they converted to Buddhism, it meant that they left their Brahmanic past behind and chose to enter the sangha and Buddhist community as equals. Why is that so hard to comprehend? Its like saying Christians were once Jews and so they are in fact Jews or Sikhs were Hindus (Guru Amar Das was a Brahmin) and so they are in fact Hindus. That reasoning does not hold. Once Nagarjuna and other Brahmins accepted Buddha`s teachings (the primary one being of equality of man), they ceased to be Brahmins. Buddha spoke of Brahminhood as a state one attained through good deeds and thoughts, not through birth, like Brahmins claim. The Brahmin version makes Brahminhood exclusive to themselves, with all the privileges it entails. The Buddhist version of Brahminhood is a state of being, open to everyone and does not discriminate. It is just a term denoting a state of being. Caste has no place in Buddhism. There was no bar on the entry of untouchables and lower castes into the sangha. They were freely taught and there was no shame in eating food with them or from them. Tell me, can you say the same of Adi Shankara or other Brahmin reformers/teachers? To this day, in the Balaji temple in Tirupathi, the Brahmins performing the puja cannot be physically touched, lest they become impure. How can your compare a religion like that with Buddhism? or Brahmins with Buddhist monks?

Regarding the assimilation of Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu, if Hindus really believe that, tell me, how many Hindus do you know worship Buddha? go to a Buddha temple? or know the name of his wife or his son? or the kingdom he was born? or the place he attained nirvana? Do you get my point? It was malicious strategy adopted by Brahmins to assimilate Buddha into their religion. The same is being done today in the case of Sikhs and calling the Gurus as keshadhari Hindus.

I do not mean to nitpick, but I do not think Brahmins and upper castes realize the utter devastation that caste has caused India. If you are a Brahmin, I mean no disrespect. Just recently a Brahmin friend came down to Houston from Michigan for the holidays. I took him home for lunch and we were just chatting. Somehow the discussion veered towards caste (he is very proud of being a ``ucch-koti Brahmin``). He asked my caste. I replied I have no caste as I do not believe in it. ``Tu chamar hai kya?`` was his query with a sarcastic grin. That is the kind of attitude prevalent to this day. If MBA-educated Brahmins have this attitude and most of my Brahmin friends do, I do not think a thousand Adi-Shankaras or Shankaracharyas can reform Brahmanism/Hinduism and it will come nowhere near Buddhism in terms of social upliftment and equality.

Having said all that, I have really enjoyed this discussion with you. Has been a pleasure really.

regards

Kabuli

PS. Chandragupta Maurya converted to Jaina Dharma and ended his life by pulling out his hair and fasting to death. Bindusara, also I believe, converted.

The Middle Kingdom Wallas re: #144 nazarhayatkhan

Apart from the conflict between Buddhism and Brahmanism and conflict it was despite the best efforts of caste apologists, there was also the conflict in more recent times between Gandhi (advocate of the caste-system) and Ambedkar (champion of lower-castes and dalits). This story too needs to be told. Gandhi was hell bent against Dalits converting to another religion and wanted to bring them into the mainstream while clinging on to the caste system. He held Ambedkar under hostage with threats of fasts. Ambedkar could not risk an internal religious civil war at that stage of India`s struggle for independence. Ambedkar did eventually convert to Buddhism along with his followers after independence but unfortunately did not live long enough to bring about a more significant transformation of Indian society. If I get the time in the midst of working full-time and attending graduate school part-time, I will try to tell both stories.

regards

Kabuli

The Middle Kingdom Wallas re: # 143 dost-mittar

I agree that Ambedkar`s theory might be one of many...but the fact remains that Buddhism became extinct in the land of its birth, while it flourished and continues to flourish outside India. What made it disappear in India? It cannot be as simplistic as Islamic invasion. It might have been the last straw, but the structure was eroding from much before. This story needs to be told and it is not just restricted to India. What happened to the Buddhist civilizations in Afghanistan, Central Asia? Were they all killed or converted? Someone must have escaped. Where did they go? That would be make for a fascinating story.

I think Ambedkar is paid only lip service in India, that too only during election time. He is treated more or less like the choorah who acted uppity. He deserves a lot better. He is one of the few Indians of his day who had the courage to call a spade a spade. The reason I think he chose Buddhism from all the choices available to him was because it was the only religion that did not have a hierarchy, theoretically or in practicality. I no longer believe in conversion for spiritual reasons, but I think Buddhism is the only religion where conversion is justified, because of the societal implications within Buddhism and without. Buddhist philosophy is not concerned with God or spirituality, but is more about common sense, a heavy dose of which Indians can benefit a lot from.

regards

Kabuli

The Middle Kingdom Wallas re: # 116 harish_hyd

Thank you.

The Middle Kingdom Wallas re: #41 Kaalchakra

You are welcome. Please read my earlier post to RSridhar.

Please read the following article by Dr. Ambedkar:

http://www.countercurrents.org/dalit-ambekarbeef050703.htm

Dr. Ambedkar was severely restricted in his efforts to bring reform in India by Gandhi, a fact many people do not know. We should make his work known and treat him as an equal of Gandhi and Nehru, if not better.

regards

Kabuli

The Middle Kingdom Wallas re: #34 by rsridhar

sorry for not replying earlier, have been busy this week with resumption of classes. I went to the bharatvani site that you posted earlier...firstly quoting from an Arun Shourie article might not be the best way to provide a counterpoint in support of Hindusim...anyway, before the part where the article says that Islam put Buddhism out of its misery in India, there is this:

``But Islam struck at Hinduism also. How is it that it was able to fell Buddhism in India but not Hinduism? Hinduism had State-patronage, says the author. The Buddhists were so persecuted by the ``Brahmanic rulers``, he writes, that, when Islam came, they converted to Islam: this welled the ranks of Muslims but in the same stroke drained those of Buddhism.``

The author here too is Ambedkar.

The death blow to Buddhism in India and elsewhere in Central Asia was given by Islam. No matter how much Islamists justify this as a result of corruption within Buddhism, it was one of the most systematic destruction of a religion. Large portion of the blame lies with Buddhism. Buddhist society, as you have rightly pointed out, was divided into the sangha and laeity. Once the visible sangha was gone, so was Buddhism. If only someone like Bodhidharma taught martial arts to Indian monks too. Khair. Buddhism was already in decline by the time Islam arrived in India. Remember that Islam arrived in India as a political force only in the second millenium CE. It lasted for a little while in Sind in the first millenium but that was about it. The Muslim state and thereafter persecution of idol-worshippers (both Hindu and Buddhist) came only after the invasion of Muhammad of Ghazna in the second millenium. Buddhism had alread existed in India for over 1500 years and was in decline. It no longer received state patronage and was persecuted by quite a few rulers particularly in Kashmir. The Gupta kings were patrons of Hinduism and though they did not seem to persecute Buddhism, the funds dried up and royal patronage, apart from Harshavardhana later, almost ceased to exist. This is in contrast to Hinduism, where each ruler had a state deity and needed Brahmins to perform the rites. Brahmanism continued to receive state patronage while Buddhism did not. Regarding your insinuation and dost-mittar`s that Buddhism was mostly propagated by Brahmins and Kshatriyas, and was mostly restricted to them; it may have been articulated by them for the most part because they were the only ones who had access to any sort of meaningful education in those days. Well and good, but Buddhism was practiced by and large by the lower rungs of society, particularly by the Vaishyas. Vaishya patronage was the main reason, I think, that Buddhism spread along the trade routes throughout central and south east Asia. There was some missionary activity, but it was primarily the Buddhist businessmen who took their religion to wherever they went. Bokhara in Uzbekistan (Bokhara is said to be a form of Vihara) on the silk road was a meeting place of cultures, races and religions. It was a great Buddhist centre, where one of the main languages was Sanskrit! The Buddha is said to have consumed dog meat given in alms and is said to have died of food poisoning after eating pork; both meats not associated with the upper castes. But the best evidence and discussion vis-a-vis conflict between Buddhism and Brahmanism can be provided by Ambedkar himself in the following article:

http://www.countercurrents.org/dalit-ambekarbeef050703.htm

It is very long and so I will not paste the entire article here, but only certain parts. It is very good and well reasoned. Please do read it.

``All this proves that for generations the Brahmins had been eating beef. Why did they give up beef-eating? Why did they, as an extreme step, give up meat eating altogether and become vegetarians? It is two revolutions rolled into one. As has been shown it has not been done as a result of the preachings of Manu, their Divine Law-maker. The revolution has taken place in spite of Manu and contrary to his directions. What made the Brahmins take this step? Was philosophy responsible for it? Or was it dictated by strategy?

Two explanations are offered. One explanation is that this deification of the cow was a manifestation of the Advaita philosophy that one supreme entity pervaded the whole universe, that on that account all life human as well as animal was sacred. This explanation is obviously unsatisfactory. In the first place, it does not fit in with facts. The Vedanta Sutra which proclaims the doctrine of oneness of life does not prohibit the killing of animals for sacrificial purposes as is evident from 11.1.28. In the second place, if the transformation was due to the desire to realise the ideal of Advaita then there is no reason why it should have stopped with the cow. It should have extended to all other animals.

Another explanation more ingenious than the first, is that this transformation in the life of the Brahmin was due to the rise of the doctrine of the Transmigration of the Soul. Even this explanation does not fit in with facts. The Brahadamyaka Upanishad upholds the doctrine of transmigration (vi.2) and yet recommends that if a man desires to have a learned son born to him he should prepare a mass of the flesh of the bull or ox or of other flesh with rice and ghee. Again, how is it that this doctrine which is propounded in the Upanishads did not have any effect on the Brahmins upto the time of the Manu Smriti, a period of at least 400 years. Obviously, this explanation is no explanation. Thirdly, if Brahmins became vegetarians by reason of the doctrine of transmigration of the soul how is it, it did not make the non-Brahmins take to vegetarianism?

To my mind, it was strategy which made the Brahmins give up beef-eating and start worshipping the cow. The clue to the worship of the cow is to be found in the struggle between Buddhism and Brahmanism and the means adopted by Brahmanism to establish its supremacy over Buddhism. The strife between Buddhism and Brahmanism is a crucial fact in Indian history. Without the realisation of this fact, it is impossible to explain some of the features of Hinduism. Unfortunately students of Indian history have entirely missed the importance of this strife. They knew there was Brahmanism. But they seem to be entirely unaware of the struggle for supremacy in which these creeds were engaged and that their struggle, which extended for 400 years has left some indelible marks on religion, society and politics of India.

This is not the place for describing the full story of the struggle. All one can do is to mention a few salient points. Buddhism was at one time the religion of the majority of the people of India. It continued to be the religion of the masses for hundreds of years. It attacked Brahmanism on all sides as no religion had done before.

Brahmanism was on the wane and if not on the wane, it was certainly on the defensive. As a result of the spread of Buddhism, the Brahmins had lost all power and prestige at the Royal Court and among the people. They were smarting under the defeat they had suffered at the hands of Buddhism and were making all possible efforts to regain their power and prestige. Buddhism had made so deep an impression on the minds of the masses and had taken such a hold of them that it was absolutely impossible for the Brahmins to fight the Buddhists except by accepting their ways and means and practising the Buddhist creed in its extreme form. After the death of Buddha his followers started setting up the images of the Buddha and building stupas. The Brahmins followed it. They, in their turn, built temples and installed in them images of Shiva, Vishnu and Ram and Krishna etc – all with the object of drawing away the crowd that was attracted by the image worship of Buddha. That is how temples and images which had no place in Brahmanism came into Hinduism. The Buddhists rejected the Brahmanic religion which consisted of Yajna and animal sacrifice, particularly of the cow. The objection to the sacrifice of the cow had taken a strong hold of the minds of the masses especially as they were an agricultural population and the cow was a very useful animal. The Brahmins in all probability had come to be hated as the killer of cows in the same way as the guest had come to be hated as Gognha, the killer of the cow by the householder, because whenever he came a cow had to be killed in his honour. That being the case, the Brahmins could do nothing to improve their position against the Buddhists except by giving up the Yajna as a form of worship and the sacrifice of the cow.

That the object of the Brahmins in giving up beef-eating was to snatch away from the Buddhist Bhikshus the supremacy they had acquired is evidenced by the adoption of vegetarianism by Brahmins. Why did the Brahmins become vegetarian? The answer is that without becoming vegetarian the Brahmins could not have recovered the ground they had lost to their rival namely Buddhism. In this connection it must be remembered that there was one aspect in which Brahmanism suffered in public esteem as compared to Buddhism. That was the practice of animal sacrifice which was the essence of Brahmanism and to which Buddhism was deadly opposed. That in an agricultural population there should be respect for Buddhism and revulsion against Brahmanism which involved slaughter of animals including cows and bullocks is only natural. What could the Brahmins do to recover the lost ground? To go one better than the Buddhist Bhikshus not only to give up meat-eating but to become vegetarians- which they did. That this was the object of the Brahmins in becoming vegetarians can be proved in various ways.

If the Brahmins had acted from conviction that animal sacrifice was bad, all that was necessary for them to do was to give up killing animals for sacrifice. It was unnecessary for them to be vegetarians. That they did go in for vegetarianism makes it obvious that their motive was far-reaching. Secondly, it was unnecessary for them to become vegetarians. For the Buddhist Bhikshus were not vegetarians. This statement might surprise many people owing to the popular belief that the connection between Ahimsa and Buddhism was immediate and essential. It is generally believed that the Buddhist Bhikshus eschewed animal food. This is an error. The fact is that the Buddhist Bhikshus were permitted to eat three kinds of flesh that were deemed pure. Later on they were extended to five classes. Yuan Chwang, the Chinese traveller was aware of this and spoke of the pure kinds of flesh as San-Ching, The origin of this practice among the Bhikshus is explained by Mr. Thomas Walters. According to the story told by him -

“In the time of Buddha there was in Vaisali a wealthy general named Siha who was a convert to Buddhism. He became a liberal supporter of the Brethren and kept them constantly supplied with good flesh-food. When it was noticed abroad that the Bhikshus were in the habit of eating such food specially provided for them, the Tirthikas made the practice a matter of angry reproach. Then the abstemious ascetic Brethren, learning this, reported the circumstances to the Master, who thereupon called the Brethren together. When they assembled, he announced to them the law that they were not to eat the flesh of any animal which they had seen put to death for them, or about which they had been told that it had been slain for them. But he permitted to the Brethren as ‘pure’ (that is, lawful) food the flesh of animals the slaughter of which had not been seen by the Bhikshus, not heard of by them, and not suspected by them to have been on their account. In the Pali and Ssu-fen Vinaya it was after a breakfast given by Siha to the Buddha and some of the Brethren, for which the carcass of a large ox was procured that the Nirgianthas reviled the Bhikshus and Buddha instituted this new rule declaring fish and flesh ‘pure’ in the three conditions. The animal food now permitted to the Bhikshus came to be known as the ‘three pures’ or ‘three pure kinds of flesh’, and it was tersely described as ‘unseen, unheard, unsuspected’, or as the Chinese translations sometimes have it ‘not seen, not heard nor suspected to be on my account’. Then two more kinds of animal food were declared ‘lawful for the Brethren viz., the flesh of animals which had died a natural death, and that of animals which had been killed by a bird of prey or other savage creature. So there came to be five classes or descriptions of flesh which the professed Buddhist was at liberty to use as food. Then the ‘unseen, unheard, unsuspected’ came to be treated as one class, and this together with the ‘natural death’ and ‘bird killed’ made a san-ching.”

As the Buddhist Bhikshus did eat meat the Brahmins had no reason to give it up. Why then did the Brahmins give up meat-eating and become vegetarians? It was because they did not want to put themselves merely on the same footing in the eyes of the public as the Buddhist Bhikshus.

The giving up of the Yajna system and abandonment of the sacrifice of the cow could have had only a limited effect. At the most it would have put the Brahmins on the same footing as the Buddhists. The same would have been the case if they had followed the rules observed by the Buddhist Bhikshus in the matter of meat-eating. It could not have given the Brahmins the means of achieving supremacy over the Buddhists which was their ambition. They wanted to oust the Buddhists from the place of honour and respect which they had acquired in the minds of the masses by their opposition to the killing of the cow for sacrificial purposes. To achieve their purpose the Brahmins had to adopt the usual tactics of a reckless adventurer. It is to beat extremism with extremism. It is the strategy which all rightists use to overcome the leftists. The only way to beat the Buddhists was to go a step further and be vegetarians.

There is another reason which can be relied upon to support the thesis that the Brahmins started cow-worship gave up beef-eating and became vegetarians in order to vanquish Buddhism. It is the date when cow-killing became a mortal sin. It is well-known that cow-killing was not made an offence by Asoka. Many people expect him to have come forward to prohibit the killing of the cow. Prof. Vincent Smith regards it as surprising. But there is nothing surprising in it.

Buddhism was against animal sacrifice in general. It had no particular affection for the cow. Asoka had therefore no particular reason to make a law to save the cow. What is more astonishing is the fact that cow-killing was made a Mahapataka, a mortal sin or a capital offence by the Gupta Kings who were champions of Hinduism which recognised and sanctioned the killing of the cow for sacrificial purposes.``


Adi Sankara did win back India for Hinduism, but by his time, the Buddhist opposition was feeble. If only there was a Nagarjuna to counter his arguments. Even Shankaracharya`s Advaita was countered by Madhavacharya`s Dvaita. So it is not as if Shankaracharya was a latter day Buddha. The Shankaracharya phenomenon is mostly recognized by the Brahmins and non-Brahmins do not pay the institution much heed. The mutts established by Shankaracharya practice a rabid form of caste discrimination, something that came well into the forefront during the recent exposing of mutt activities. Buddhism could never be accused of caste discrimination. By absorbing Buddhism into its fold and making Buddha an incarnation of Vishnu, Hinduism (Brahmins really) has cleverly eliminated a major threat to its supremacy in India. `` Oh, he was one of us`` is a nice and clever ploy, just like the ones Europeans used in creating Aryan theories. Buddhism`s ability to liberate the individual from the restrictions of society has brought it into conflict not just in India (it came in the way of Brahmin interests) but in China as well (where it came into conflict with the existing Confucian orthodoxy). Efforts were made to eradicate the faith in China as well, it was only partially successful there, but in India due to a combination of factors, it was almost entirely wiped out.

regards

Kabuli

The Middle Kingdom Wallas re # 10 RSridhar

Buddhism was systematically wiped out from India through Brahmin-Kshatriya alliance and later through Islamic invasions. Ambedkar`s works provide an excellent description of how Buddhism ceased to exist in India. Really, a must read for anyone interesed in how a sensible and egalitarian religion such as Buddhism came to be replaced by Hinduism and Islam in India. Brahmanism`s vegetarian lifestyle was a strategy adopted to counter Buddhism`s influence. Before the arrival of Buddhism, Brahmins did not mind chomping on horses and cows. The coup de grace to Buddhism in India was the wholesale ransacking of monasteries and butchering of monks by Muslim invaders (Hindu rajas too indulged in this but not in a wholesale manner). The then world famous library and university in Nalanda burned for weeks after getting torched by Muslim invaders. For your interest, before Ambedkar`s conversion to Buddhism, one of the last remaining pockets of Buddhism in India was in Tanjavur.

#17 dost-mittar:

Bodhi Dharma was a kshatriya prince in Kerala and was well versed in Indian martial arts. He received Buddhist education, primarily Dhyana Buddhism, from Prajavatna(sp?) and was invited to China. There, overcome by the feeble and weak monks at the Shaolin monastery, unable to protect themselves from bandits, he taught them the martial arts he learnt as a Kshatriya Prince. His Dhyana Buddhism is called Chan Buddhism by Chinese and Zen Buddhism by Japanese. He can be thus said as the father of Buddhist philosophy in those countries, even though other Buddhist monks from India and Central Asia went to China before him. He was once so upset with himself for sleeping while meditating, that he cut out his eyelids. That is why Chinese and Japanese descriptions of Bodhi Dharma show him as a fierce man, but in reality he only looks like that because he is portrayed without his eyelids. Indians have forgotten him, but he is revered all over South-East Asia.

Kabuli

Point of View, 1971 Through Now Mr. Malik,

It would have been better if you had gone about your efforts to finding our soldiers without writing about it on chowk. People who have tenaciously kept Indian soldiers from being freed will no doubt use all their powers to keep them incarcerated in the future when they hear or read about this. What is the point of publicizing your efforts on a forum like chowk where most of the people are nationalists who cannot see beyond the evils of their respective countries?

Caste and the City reservations in jobs and higher education will amount to zilch if dalits and other oppressed castes do not receive a solid primary and high school education. A dalit high school graduate who has poor grades will perform poorly in college and thereafter in the workplace. Net result being no real progress for the Dalits and loss in the form of inefficiency to the country. Govt. schools are free or nearly free to everyone. However the standards at these schools is so poor that they might as well not exist at all. Most Govt. run schools have absentee teachers who still continue to draw salaries. There should be large scale reform in Govt. sponsored primary and high school education. I think private schools too should be made to allocate a percentage of seats to people from the backward and scheduled castes. If all citizens are given a level playing field in the form of primary and high school education, then the best and the brightest irrespective of caste can take advantage of the premier educational institutions in the country, thus not only benefiting themselves and their families, but also increasing the productivity of the country.

Caste and the City re: casteism in non-Hindu religions in the subcontinent

I have personally witnessed discrimination and clear bigotry and bias within the Islamic, Christian and Sikh religions in the subcontinent based on caste. In Islam for example, the Syeds consider themselves a class apart and above everyone else. Syeds tend to be from all ``racial`` groups. These ``racial`` groups claim descent from Turk, Persian or Arab ancestors. Next in line are non-Syed ``foreign`` descendants. Then come the ``native`` high-caste and low-caste land and cattle owning converts such Rajputs, Jats, Gujars, Ahirs, Meos etc. At the bottom are the sheikhs (Dalit and other low caste converts) who are expected to serve and be subservient to all the others.

Sikhism, like Islam, does not sanction discrimination on any basis, much less on the basis of caste. But casteism, female infanticide, honor killings, racial and language discrimination is among the highest within the Sikh community. I have personally been at the receiving end of some of this bigotry. Modern day Sikhs are quite obsessive about caste and usually do not intermarry with Sikhs from different castes. Interestingly, supposedly low caste (Jat) Sikhs are at the top of the hierarchy and bully all others. It is also interesting that unlike in Islam, where descendants of Muhammad (Syed) have influence and power, in Sikhism, there is no significance attached the Gurus` descendants and family lines. (None of the Sikh Gurus were Jat; they were predominantly of Khatree origin, while I believe Guru Amar Das was of Brahmin ancestry). The hierarchy within Sikhism is something like Jat-Rajput-Khatri-Ramgharia-Dalit; in decreasing order of power and influence.

Christianity, for all its evangelism, has not escaped the clutches of caste and race. Through the four centuries or so of European influence in India, there has formed a distinct hierarchy within Christianity. First come the descendants of supposedly pure European blood, people who have no native blood. This class more or less left India when European rule came to an end. Then come the Anglo-Indians, a terms used to denote all descendants of mixed European and Indian relationships and marriages. This class of people consider themselves as being white and the guardians of Christianity and European values within India. Huge swathes of this community has also emigrated abroad, leaving mostly their poor, elderly and uneducated behind. Then come the land-owning, well off christian converts, mostly in South India, who are proud of their language and origins. Rajasekhar Reddy, the current CM of Andhra Pradesh is from this class. Last in this hierarchy come the Dalit Christians who to their credit have taken advantage of their conversion to Christianity and utilized the missionary educational institutions well. The Anglo-Indians do not mix with Dalit Christians much and do not intermarry with them. In villages, it is not uncommon for Dalit Christians to be mobile between Hinduism and Christianity, depending on the incentives provided to them at any particular point in time in terms of reservations in jobs, education etc.

The Tale of Five Rivers re: ponniyinselvan # 87

``When Indian Punjab was divided according to the language, Haryana Hindus who spoke Punjabi mentioned their language as Hindi, to save their areas from being included into the predominantly Sikh state.``

In general, I have really enjoyed your posts but I think the above statement is not exactly right. It is true that Punjabi Hindus in Haryana put down their mother tongue as Hindi in the census, but I think it is for reasons other than being included ``into`` a ``predominantly Sikh state``. According to Patwant Singh, the Sikh author, it is probably the first time that a minority (the Sikhs were a minority in the the entity/province before its partition ) campaigned to keep the state together. As against the normal trend of a minority campaigning ot break off.

If the partition of the province had been avoided then, the state would have been more diverse with significant # of non-Punjabi paharis, gujars etc. The partition of the province was seen as a betrayal by Punjabi-lovers and romantics would wanted a kind of pseudo-Akhand Punjab. These romantics can be found every now and then who speak of the glory days of Punjab when Punjabi was understood by almost the whole of North India, including in Rajasthan. In any case, the hatred of the Hindus (especially of the Punjabi variety) that is commonly found in expatriate Sikhs can be traced back to this time of partition of the state.

As a corollary, if this post-independence partition had been avioded, the Sikh dharma itself would have been protected from some psycho Jat Sikhs who hijacked the religion and the province in the years to come. Diverging Sikh voices would not have been drowned in the voice of the gun that devastated a generation in a Sikh-majority Punjab. A larger province would have meant more bargaining power with the center and it would not have been seen as purely a ``border state`` that needed to be ``managed``.

regards,

Kabuli

Indian Classical Music in Lahore re: MaheshG2

I believe that the Tanpura (Tambura in Carnatic Music) is from Central Asia.

regards

Kabuli

The Bollywood Effect – is Reema the next Rani? re: urstruly # 34

Videos and VCRs have become almost obsolete in India...it is very rare nowadays to see stores renting video cassettes...at least this is the case in Bangalore...it is mostly VCDs now...most VCDs are rented and sold illegally in India and every now and then there is a huge drive to arrest characters involved in this underground racket. But I think it is just a naam-ke-vaaste exercise designed to keep the movie industry happy. It is a lucrative racket with foreign connections (Dubai and Pakistan) and I think for such a large network to thrive successfully, the racket obviously has political connections. So naturally the naam-ke-vaaste exercises end up being what they are. For some reason, Aamir Khan movies seem to be more successful at not getting pirated. Also nowadays, Hindi movies come out officially on DVD and VCD much earlier than they used to. Like within a few weeks of their theatre release. This trend seems to be global as I notice the same thing with Hollywood movies too. Kazaa and other file sharing devices seem to have distributing companies running for cover.

Watching movies in cinema halls is treated as an experience in India rather than simply watching a movie. The lutf of this ``experience`` is considered watching a movie on a big screen with good sound in total darkness and privacy sitting in an air conditioned environment, conditions unavailable to most Indians in their daily lives. It is also a way for couples to get some alone time, away from joint families. Ticket prices in Bangalore are kind of biased, with English being most expensive at Rs. 75 in AC, Hindi at Rs. 40 in AC and Kannada at Rs. 15. For some strange reason, a city the size of Delhi has only about 20 odd cinema halls. However the PVR chain cinema halls are world-class, and kinda expensive at Rs. 100 a ticket. (This was 2 years ago).

regards

Kabuli