Click!! Thanks. I enjoyed it! Nicely used literary device, too.

Mercy beau-coup? Looking at the article and the interacts, i think nobody has really looked at the crux of the issue, which concerns his guilt or innocence. Its just turned into another Indo/Pakistan slinging match.

If he really was a secret agent who planted bombs then i agree with the article. the question to ask is why is the indian government involved in blowing people up?

if he was a drunken farmer at the wrong place (serious understatement) at the wrong time, then Farzana`s view is far too harsh and uncaring.

What is the truth? What would the Pakistanis gain from framing an innocent man? Does RAW recruit sikh farmers as spies? surely indian muslims would be more suitable? etc

Can anyone enlighten me/us concerning the ``facts``?

See RSS, Think Al Queda! these people are nasty. i checked out the site hinduunity.org i expect there are worse sites, ive certainly read elsewhere parts of their books detailing all the genocides commited by muslims since their ``arrival`` in india (though most didnt exactly arrive here, or at least arrived as non muslims!). as a historian, its some of the biggest falsifications of history ive ever read!

btw, on the site, there is a link to ``Bharat`s new flag``. Check it out everyone!!

http://hinduunity.org/newflag.gif

The Worst Curse in the World Re: # 34
hi arjun,
im a non muslim and i certainly dont find home-grown suicide bombers ``ridiculous``. alarming, drastically misled, even brainwashed, yes.

you said``If the bombers had been Iraqis, it might have been a different thing ``

an interesting point, though im not sure you thought about it.

are you implying that the iraqis have more of a right to say ``terrorism is bad...but``. maybe they do. in which case why not others? just because their passport was different, i think those who blew themselves up (wherever, not just in london) do it because they feel an affinity with their ``oppressed`` co religionists. solidarity based not on nationality, but on religion. whats the difference? if one is ok, why not the other?

what turned this feeling of affinity into suicide is another question. i suppose its a combination of misleading religious promises of the rewards of martyrdom, religiously-induced hatred for western values, frustration with perceived double standards in politics, maybe some social problems too (this is certainly true in Palestine. in Leeds maybe too?)

The Worst Curse in the World Re: # 29
what i was trying to say was not to try to understand the terrorists themselves and their more crazy demands which have little or no support from anyone - i agree - whats the point in trying to further understand their desire to reconquer spain!! its ridiculous.

rather, to try and understand the areas where they pick up support and sympathy from other muslims, which are perhaps less clear-cut than invading poor spain ! if these areas were looked at a little more, most OBL partial sympathisers, (YES terrorism is wrong, BUT is it worse than chechnya etc), these ``yes..but`` people would no longer have any ``buts``, and al queda would be overnight reduced to mere also-rans, rather than their current position in the limelight.

will this happen? i doubt it. polititians in the west seem dead set on upping the stakes in order to look ``tough`` on terrorism (afghanistan..iraq...guantanamo...threatening to use force on Iran last week, etc), which simply serves to further widen the divide.

in england, the same thing. the transport police have admitted they will be profiling non-white people in stop and search operations. the police have their disastrous shoot-to-kill policy and are even now trying to cover up certain aspects of the Menezes shooting. mosques were burnt and Norman f###ing Tebit is going on about his ``cricket test`` for immigrants (ie do they support England or Pakistan in cricket matches!). instead of isolating the terrorists, we re handing them fodder by creating more ``buts`` for the non-fundementalist muslim majority to sypathise with.

The Worst Curse in the World Dear Mr Dasgupta

I was a little disapointed with your article. yet it started off so promisingly:

``If we have to defeat these terrorists, then we have to understand their objectives. Once we have understood their objectives (howsoever lurid and eye popping they may be), that makes us see their ideology in greater detail and then we are on our way to combat their pernicious influence over their sympathisers and turn the already committed terrorists. ``

Key to the above enlightened paragraph is the word ``understanding``. this is not a synonym for ``excusing``, ``justifying``, ``supporting`` etc. it is merely a way of trying to take on somebody else`s vision of that controversial concept named ``truth``, which nobody holds a monopoly of.

You then went on to give your sythesis of the jihadists` objectives, and to point out the numerous inconsistencies they contain. I saw little effort to ``understand``. I would guess there are very few muslims in the world who would adhere to the majority of binladin`s objectives. Occupying Spain? converting the whole world`s population to wahabi Islam? (the Quran itself talks about respecting other religions!) etc

So why then is there this increasing polarisation between the Islamic world and the West? The ``Them and Us`` perception? This certainly exists, and there was unfortunately very little attempt in your article to ``understand`` and to ``empathise`` with those who may have a certain sympathy for aspects of alqaeda, or who would condemn it in the same breath as they would condemn the West. I repeat, empathising and understanding is in NO way supporting and justifying.

As Mr Dalit correctly pointed out, al qaeda itself is relatively weak - it has only managed a handful of attacks since 2001. The real foe is the polarisation of opinions due to the increasing injustice and double standards PERCEIVED throughout the muslim world. If governments are to improve relations, then we need to examine the reasons behind this perception and to tackle any issues within OUR control which are provoking injustices(possibly Palestine, western support of tinpot dictators etc etc).

This action could only encourage the muslim ``world`` (excuse the generalisation - i realise there is a wide range of opinions within it!!) to examine more closely its own perceptions of international relations and to be more aware of its own double standards (the hero Saddam, who was responsible for many more muslim deaths than bush, far worse treatment of political prisoners in their regimes than in Guantanamo etc etc)

I realise my comments may seem idealistic, but hey!! thats what we are all here for isnt it?

Through the Parsi Prism re: #62

Dear Behram,
just a couple of things i wanted to pick up on:

i think it was fascinating what you said about pakistani parsis differing from bombay ones -proof that our culture is constantly devoloping/absorbing etc

secondly, i disagree with what you say about conversion. the key issue is outsiders and people born of one parsi parent (father or mother) converting TO zoroastrianism, not parsis converting to other faiths. you compare with islam not allowing conversions OUT, but as a proselytising faith, its message is universal and it certainly encourages new believers.
also, you answer
``Your assertion...{A culture can remain alive only through people and on the other hand, people can kill a culture...} I am sorry but Parsis are not killing their own culture, their own tradition, their own values, their own rituals. They are just defending what is left.....like an endangered species would. ``

i hasten to disagree! a recent ruling from the parsi priestly body threatened excommunication upon anyone, man or woman, who married out. here is the bbc link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2964155.stm

this is absolute self destruction. you say that quantity is not the only issue. yet with virtual extinction looming within 3 or 4 generations, i would say that numbers are everything. there is no doubt in my mind that our culture is as unique as ever. the problem is that it will die not from lack of diversity, but from lack of people.

Through the Parsi Prism Re: # 64
Hello Punnu halwai

there were many parsis prominent in the indian independance movement , however i think that on the whole, the majority of the community up to the 1940`s was pretty anglophile. (some might prefer arselicking!!). after all, they had prospered under the british, and like many other members of the then upper and upper middle classes (originally including Jinnah and Nehru), they identified with and hankered after notions of noble britishness inculcated by the colonial occupier, which needless to say, didnt exist outside of their collective imaginations!

many are still influenced by this period and by the number of overseas family they now have, making them by far the most anglophone community in india. however,they still rest completely and uniquely parsi, no other community resembles them anywhere in the world.

It is natural that certain aspects of english identity have been incorporated into theirs, and they have also taken on many more hindu influences too.(coconut breaking, bindu flowers, saris...). the british, like all the other historic waves of invaders (hindu aryans, greeks, afghans, persians, turks, moghuls...) left their trace on the subcontinent. (im sure you can all list countless positive, negative and ambiguous influences on ALL the indian religions and aspects of the society!)

the great zoroastrian music culture of ancient iran, whose direct successors are the modes and forms common in modern iranian and in particular Kurdish music, unfortunately never made it to indian shores, or at least not on the original parsi boats. (though the persian muslim cultures which later arrived here did transport arab-iranian music). which is the reason in parsi celebrations, AFTER the ceremony (though in no way during), this GHASTLY music may be played. ive also seen my extended family get together and sing along to songs in english. LET IT BE CLEAR, nobody in the world apart from the parsis actually listens and sings along to this crap, so we can say that it is peculiar to parsi culture!! :-)))

in our wonderful and unique cuisine, there are also english influences. eg at weddings one of the many dishes is Laganu ``Saas``, (gujerati for ``sauce``?), which is basically a flour based sauce with fish stewed in it. delicious, but probably english influenced. Does that mean we have no culinary culture?

All culture is the result of mix. ``Pure culture`` is an oxymoron

you also state:
`` My point of Parsis not being part of the mainstream is evident in daily life(like the Parsi colonies- White colonies in Brown neighbourhood) or Parsi owned businesses. It happens in other communities too, the Marwaris for instance but it is much more pronounced in Parsis.``

i think there is a slight underestimation here. The entire FABRIC of indian business is based on networks of extended family relationships, caste, and religious groupings. indeed historically this is true throughout much of the world. in villages, towns and cities. THere are obviously exceptions to this generalisation, but how many castes or religious sects are NOT associated with specific trades?

Through the Parsi Prism Re: # 49
hi mr pannu halwai
just to point out a couple of things, youre right , its strange that these greek transliterations are used. in my family there is both a Cyrus and a Korush. maybe the modern farsi pronunciation of the names has changed from the ancient avestan one. i dont know much about that, but its a possiblilty. the alternative for darius would be Dariosh, Jaal should be Zaal etc. my name Rustom in modern iran would be Rostam. i dont quite see how these spelling differences show an absence of culture though.
also, to quote you,

``As a community they help thier own kind and donot generally mix with the mainstream``

youre right to a certain extent, indeed WHAT COULD BE MORE INDIAN THAN THIS??!!

Through the Parsi Prism Re: # 40

Its interesting that on your list mr rsridhar, many of the names you quote as being parsis are in fact of mixed lineage, thus in the eyes of the parsi traditionalists, (with their inbred genetic deformities they literally boast about to illustrate their racial purity) these people are in fact imposters!! yet mixing with outsiders is surely the only way forward, as i will explain below.

1) JRD Tata was born in the 9th arrondissement in paris (where he was buried too - too impure for the vultures) and his mother was a froggy called suzanne.

2) Feroz Gandhi - i think (unless its just RSS propoganda) his mother was a parsi called Gandhe and his father a certain Nawab Khan, making the child a muslim because parsis cannot mix, particularly when its the father who is the outsider. can anyone confirm or deny this? it certainly would further enhance the gandhi clan`s claims to represent all of india!!

3) John Abraham is half catlic, half irani (not strictly a parsi, but a later influx of zoroastrians from persia)

4) Neville Wadia (though not on your list, he s certainly usually included on the famous parsi list). his family owns bombay dyeing. i think he had some irish ancestor, was born in liverpool, converted to christianity (which also excludes you for ever from being a true parsi in the traditionalist view) and then went on to marry Jinnah`s daughter, herself born of a muslim father and parsi mother.

in addition to this list, many parsis, judging from their typically indian features, surely have indian ``blood`` in them somewhere. In any case i think that its ridiculous to be so obsessed by ones racial purity. there is nothing about this in the few remaining zoroastrian scriptures (even though traditionalists try to twist avestan translations to find something) -its basically a consequence of contact with india and its own caste system.

to answer Farzana`s original question, in order to play a role in society, the first step is to actually exist!

I think there are about 65000 parsis in bombay, the frightening part is that the vast majority of them are over 65, meaning that numbers will rapidly fall within one generation). Typical parsi men and women study extensively, marry late, divorce early and are partially excluded if they ``marry out``. add to that the growing number of birth defects and genetic diseases , unmarried people and childless couples, and the future is pretty bleak.

Accepting those who marry out and their children is not just an issue to debate (its been on the agenda for over a century, since Jrd tata`s father took the parsi panchyat to court at the turn of the last century over his French wife), its now the ONLY option for any sort of survival into the latter part of this century.
comments from any traditionalists around??

Arabs, Jains, Mammon and Osama Fascinating - keep the info coming!!

ps. papeti mubarak everyone (parsi new year according to some calendars)

Saudi Government to Demolish Prophet Muhammed’s home I suppose in defense of them, ( im trying to understand their viewpoint rather than to excuse them!!) , at least they are not hypocritical (regarding this aspect - im sure it wouldnt be very difficult to find another aspect where they were !) - even the king was buried in an unmarked grave, in keeping with their own particular orthodoxy.
And in christianity, another monotheistic religion, shrines and saints and virgins and churches and places do attract as much attention as ``god `` him/herself, which is probably contrary to jesus` teachings.

I think humans tend to attach themselves to icons, idols, special places etc in order to try to bridge the gap between god and themselves. If this practice is considered as a dangerous deviation from the true spiritual nature of the divinity (as it is in wahabism, and also christian puritanism for example), then i can understand to a certain extent their desire (though not their zeal) to avoid this, and to demolish ``religious red herrings``.

however, there is no more justification for their own ultra puritan reading of the Quran than for any other interpretation, - indeed the Quran speaks of mecca as being a special place in which to revere Allah, and by destroying these historic places which they are supposedly keeping in trust for all muslims, they are depriving both muslims and humanity at large of their heritage. Let us be thankful that Wahabism is not overly present on the subcontinent - that would really put a spanner in the works!!

I am also surprised that this issue has not been taken up more publicly by muslim leaders, or are they all too afraid of diluting the current hatred for all things ``western`` which is felt throughout the civilian populations of their countries, diverting these people away from their own political and social problems?

btw,the article in the independent can be viewed at this address: http://www.rense.com/general67/mecca.htm

Through the Parsi Prism my father is parsi - whether that makes me one or not is hotly debated by traditionalists and reformists, and has been for over a century. famous parsi families such as the tatas and the wadias contain non-parsi ``blood`` but are generally regarded as being parsi, while on the other side traditionalists proudly boast of the prevelance of genetic disorders in their families and community created by in-breeding as proof of their racial ``purity``! I`m glad to have escaped!!

i always find opinions such as kaurasach (#3) shockingly ignorant, whether they come from within the community or without:
``It is said that Persians (before being polluted by Arab blood, and becoming muslims) were distant cousins of Indus civilization. ``

``Pure race``, ``blood pollution``, ``pure aryan``... these are terms one frequently comes across all over the world, particularly in India. However, they mean ABSOLUTELY ZILCH!!

coming back to the original question, in recent years i think the parsi community have just felt too outnumbered in elections to make any political difference (even in bombay, their stronghold, they make up a mere 0.5% of the electorate) - voting and candidates still follow caste and religious divisions in india to a large extent, and candidates and parties understandably target issues which affect communities having real voting power.

There were parsis involved in the independence struggle, and their economic success must give them greater political power than their numbers might otherwise suggest. However, aware of their potential vulnerability as a wealthy but tiny community, often perceived as having ``non-indian `` roots (although again most communities in india would probably fit into this category somewhere along the line!) they shy away from attracting undue attention.

Through the Parsi Prism my father is parsi - whether that makes me one or not is hotly debated by traditionalists and reformists, and has been for over a century. famous parsi families such as the tatas and the wadias contain non-parsi ``blood`` but are generally regarded as being parsi, while on the other side traditionalists proudly boast of the prevelance of genetic disorders in their families and community created by in-breeding as proof of their racial ``purity``! I`m glad to have escaped!!

i always find opinions such as kaurasach (#3) shockingly ignorant, whether they come from within the community or without:
``It is said that Persians (before being polluted by Arab blood, and becoming muslims) were distant cousins of Indus civilization. ``

``Pure race``, ``blood pollution``, ``pure aryan``... these are terms one frequently comes across all over the world, particularly in India. However, they mean ABSOLUTELY ZILCH!!

coming back to the original question, in recent years i think the parsi community have just felt too outnumbered in elections to make any political difference (even in bombay, their stronghold, they make up a mere 0.5% of the electorate) - voting and candidates still follow caste and religious divisions in india to a large extent, and candidates and parties understandably target issues which affect communities having real voting power.

There were parsis involved in the independence struggle, and their economic success must give them greater political power than their numbers might otherwise suggest. However, aware of their potential vulnerability as a wealthy but tiny community, often perceived as having ``non-indian `` roots (although again most communities in india would probably fit into this category somewhere along the line!) they shy away from attracting undue attention.