Celebrating the Khalsa Why did Sikhism not spread beyond the Punjab? Why, as an earlier interactor said, has it become synonymous with ``Punjabi``? I remember reading somewhere that the ``Panj Piare`` where from different parts of the country, and many leading figures in Sikhism were non-Punjabi, near the beginnings of the faith. How, then, did it come to be confined to Punjab?

If it had spread beyond, into the rest of India, it could have been a powerful unifying force, with its rejection of caste and superstition. As a religion, it does not seem too alien to Hindus, who probably would not have too much trouble accepting it`s philosophy and teachings...and maybe it`s monotheism may have appealed to sections of Muslims as well.

Culture Cloning Shaista,

``If this is what our media gurus have learnt from the national debate on the topic than I am really disappointed.``

er..shouldn`t that be ``media maulvis``...? :-)

The Dance of the Damned Re: # 146

Rsridhar,

I can`t believe anyone could take that book seriously! It`s a load of BS, probably paid for by various RSS/VHP types. The Caspian sea named after sage Kashyapa, indeed!!

Here`s a couple more of such gems, all by such ``reputed`` historians like Gidwani. (They seem to be really big on phonetic similarities!!)

- The word ``Sikh`` is derived from ``Saka``
- ``Abraham`` is a corruption of ``Brahman``
- Tamils are descendants of the Biblical Elamites (I think this is based on the fact that the Sri Lankan Tamils demand a homeland called ``Eelam``!).

Cheers,
SS

A Cinephile’s Choice Asif:

Do you know a good place in London for foreign films? I`m specifically interested in Iranian films, by directors like Makhmalbaf and Kiarostami.

Looking forward to a detailed write-up on your top 10.

Thanks,
SS

Pakistan’s Choice Re: # 126

``In fact, nothing creates fireproofing better than having been burned once.``

Premwalla, that is precisely the reason reunification will never happen. Indians have been burned once by partition; we`ll never risk having to go through it again.

``The prospect of nuclear war far outweighs the risk of reunification.``

To most Indians, the former is a remote ``if``, while the latter is an almost-certain.

Pakistan’s Choice Re: # 60

Premwalla,
Reunifying India and Pakistan is a surefire recipe for disaster, probably more for India than for Pakistan. It will mean going back to square one, for the subcontinent - a large muslim population, always restive, feeling themselves to be in a better position to reassert their ``rule``, and dreaming of dominating the land. It would result in a state of continuous civil war, with the country being a giant version of Cyprus or Lebanon. Whatever progress India has made in the decades since independence would be wiped out. From an Indian point of view, the dangers of reunification far outweigh the benefits. In fact, the only benefit for India I can think of is a possible reduction in the military budget, which, in any case is not overly high.

I`m glad reunification is a near-impossibility.

Cairo: A Foreigner’s View ``...since most history in Egypt is traced back 5000 years ago and Islamic history and the reign of Salahudin Ayubi is called recent history.``

Just out of curiosity, wouldn`t you, as a Pakistani, feel this way too?

The Middle Kingdom Wallas Re: # 157

I think Islamic invaders were primarily responsible for extinguishing Buddhism in India. As someone pointed out, Buddhist viharas would have been the most prominent and visible targets to an invader looking to destroy signs of idolatry. Also, an alien invader might have had trouble distinguishing between Buddhism and Hinduism, given their similarities, and may have targeted the Buddhist minority, thinking they were striking at the heart of the majority religion. Even today, Hinduism and Buddhism are intertwined in Nepal; in China and Japan also, it is hard to distinguish between Buddhism and Confucianism and Shinto respectively.

In addition, Buddhism was probably the ``idolatrous`` religion the invaders were most familiar with - most of them (Ghaznavi, Ghori) were Turks, and many Turkic tribes were Buddhist before they became Muslim. I might be mistaken in this, but doesn`t the word ``But`` (as in ``But-shikan``) derive from ``Buddha``?

Caste and the City Re one of Amit`s earlier posts, the comparison of the caste system with Latin American countries is kind of apt. Take Mexico for example. Before the Spanish conquistadores arrived, there were populous native nations, like the Aztecs and Maya, with a well established culture of their own. The Spanish took over in spite of much fewer numbers, due to their technological superiority. So now you have a light-skinned ruling elite, mainly descendants of landed gentry and concentrated in urban areas. But most Mexican don`t look very spanish - most look Native American, or of mixed blood. I suppose the reason for this is Spanish genes made a fairly small contribution to the mexican gene pool. Culturally, however, the country and its people are predominantly european - untill one goes out of the cities and into the remoter areas. The more romote the place, the more likely are the people to look Native American, to practise a Catholicism mixed with earlier beliefs, and in some cases speak their own languages - at which point it becomes hard to distinguish them from the surviving pockets of ``pure`` native people.

In India too, there is a light-skinned, numerically small elite, concentrated mostly in the more ``mainstream`` areas. In the countryside, people start looking different, many have their own dialects, entire villages or districts inhabited by a certain ``caste`` appear, which may speak its own language and practise a religion they call Hinduism but with deities unknown anywhere else, and finally blend smoothly into neigbouring ``adivasi` tribes.

In Mexico, too, in its early days, there were attempts to foist a ``caste`` system on the people - on top were the Castilian nobility (most clergy belonged to this group as well), other Spaniards, then people of mixed blood (Mestizos) and finally ``Indios``.

I would think this is bound to happen when a small but powerful invader takes over a populous land, able to impose their culture, but not prevent the natives from interpreting it thir way, and desperate to keep their identity in the midst of the conqured masses. its also more plausible than the classic theories of aryan invaders arriving en masse, driving the native Dravidians south, and becoming the ancestors of most north indians.

I`m in no way trying to defend the caste system - its indefensible - merely trying to explore the origins of it.

Indian Troop Reduction in Kashmir: Merely Symbolic? Mantolives,

Your point about the legal status of Kashmir is taken - but in my opinion, the legal aspect is a fig leaf for Pakistan coveting the territory. After all, Pakistan did pretty much what it pleased with the portion it got - separating northern areas from it, leaving only a small slice of territory as ``Azad Kashmir``, thereby ensuring that the tag of ``disputed territory`` would affect only a small part of Kashmir with Pakistan.

I guess what i`m trying to say is that the India - Pak thing is basically a hindu - muslim thing - if the only reason for pakistan wanting to detach Kashmir from india is because Kashmiris are muslims, then once that`s done, what`s next? Your Bhutto had a lot of things to say about raising the Pakistani flag on the red fort. If the reports one reads in the indian media about militant Indian muslim organisations` (like SIMI) links to Pakistan are true, this seems to be work in progress already.

Would appreciate your thoughts on what I said about Uygurs in China.

The Troubled History of Jews Nazar,

There`s a theory that most Ashkenazic (European) Jews are not descendants of the original diaspora, but of the Khazars, a Turkic people who ruled southern Russia, and converted to Judaism. Any thoughts on that?

Indian Troop Reduction in Kashmir: Merely Symbolic? To the Pakistanis on this board..esp Urstruly...here`s a question...a couple, actually.

If all you`re interested in is letting the Kashmiris determine their future,(that claim seems to be aired loudly) what gives you the right to do so? Is it that the Kashmiris are your co-religionists? If so, how do we know that it`ll stop there? Say we were to give up Kashmir - would pakistan become our best friend from that moment? Or...would the next mission in your country`s life be the establishment of a separate state for Gujarati muslims...or the restoration of the Nizam`s state...or a second partition of India as some of your brethren are still languishing in India?

That brings me to another thought...if you`re so concerned about the Kashmiris because they`re muslims, why don`t you ever raise your voices against the state of which you were a client before you became one of the US? I mean China, of course. I`m sure you know of the Uygur population in Xinjiang (next to kashmir!), and how the Chinese are flooding the province with Han settlers, so that the Uygurs are rapidly being reduced to a minority, much as the Tibetans already have been. So why are there no jihads to protect your Uygur brethren?