Thoughts & Discussions(served with tea)

Religions unite in tainting young minds?

2005-07-05T19:34:00.000-07:00

From an article:"A for Arjun, B for Brahma, G for Ganesh, H for Hanuman…That is how the students of Saraswasti Shishu Mandir learn the alphabet. These schools are run by Vidya Bharti — an RSS organisation.
“Ram Pujan is held at 8315 villages in Kerala, in Bengal in another 5516. In which state are more pujas held?” is one question and another is, “If someone reads 110 Ramayan chaupals in a day then in how many days will he complete 12,980?”. These are some questions in Shishu Mandir textbooks .
“Akbar has been criticised for starting Din-e-Illahi and condemned for having non-Muslim wives and non-Muslim courtesans. Hindu kings in general broke agreements and provoked Muslim kings to war”. This is course material of a book in Jammat-e-Islami taught at madrasahs."

First of, lets recognize the fact that not all schools out there are out to produce future doctors, engineers, journalists and other white collar professionals.

Madrassas exist to impart the knowledge of the quoran. ved-pathshalas exist to impart the knowledge of the vedas. Are there any christian schools that only impart the teachings of the bible? Let us throw that into the potpourri too. The aim of such schools might be to produce people learned in the quoran, vedas and the bible, so that the passouts can assist in the practice & spread of the religion.

Now let us see both sides of the coin. do we need individuals who are trained in a single school of thought throughout childhood? Especially if the exclusive school of thought is a religious one? If there has ever been a need to exercise religious tolerance and equality, it is now. Yes, all religions teach its followers to show tolerance to other religions. but do all religions preach equality? Hardly. It may be dependent on a particular school, on how much they play down this factor or hype it up. Therein lies the first danger. Next, can an appreciation for other religions truly come about because your religious text says so? A hindu studying the vedas with other hindus, can he look to a muslim as not a man from mars, having spent his entire childhood among hindus? And vice-versa? Herein comes the second danger, of ghettoisation. So do we need preists, imams and fathers who cannot see beyond their own religion? How will such a person respond to the country's call of religious harmony, if it calls for treating other religions with equal respect?

Now the other side. Eliminating all religious references from syllabi. We dont want individuals to scoff at religious people and their customs. For all the politically incorrect connotations that this may bring up, we do need to connect back with our roots and preserve the elements that has sustained us for the last 3000(?) years. We dont want individuals who blindly believe that everything given in their books is necessarily correct, or western ideals are superior to native ideals. It is this very lack of sensitization to religion that has bred an intellectual divide between leftist thinkers and the rightists. Without a centrist school of thought and educated people in conflict over the various dichotomies, they find themselves either vigourously agreeing with the right-wingers or disagreeing with them(leftists! ). Their culture is a myraid of vague customs where the central philosophy is lost.

So while its important to have madrassas and ved-pathshalas, and certainly undemocratic to shut them, it is important that their syllabi be sanctioned by some authority figure/body, so the half-truths and falseties can be purged. It is important that even these schools include extra-curricular activities such as interaction with people from other schools, lectures, discussions and debates on other religions.

Indian syllabi has no mention of philosophy, except of socrates as a wise man who was murdered by religious bigots. All kids know the basic story of ramayan and mahabharat. But can they tell the connotations behind the various incidents in the epics? Just a few days back, there was a question on why Ram asked Sita to give a proof of her chastity. More often than not, while the leftists cry hoarse over women's inequality and the rightist cry hoarse over the need to preserve the "nari samman" over this, the underlying concept of the king not being a autocrat, but a subject to the people's will is lost! So's the underlying concept that the king must be free of moral stains. Two things our politicians could highly do with! Whats more, this incident seems to have been inserted

I can only conclude that far from this policy of religious desentization, even secular schools need to inculcate religious philosophy in their syllabi. make it an pass/not pass graded course, since the argument of increasing burden on children is quite correct. you could start the subject from class V onwards upto class X. students would not have exams but be asked to present weekly reports. over a period of five years, students could be given much more than just an intro to religious studies. i believe this'll lead to a more wholesome syllabi than what exists now.

Linux & the Subcontinent

2005-06-25T03:35:00.000-07:00

Linux or more `correctly' Gnu/Linux is a free, complete UNIX style operating system which uses the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux has been around since the early 90's and has made rapid strides since then to place itself as a powerful desktop OS in addition to its more traditional superior-standing on the server front(as compared to Microsoft server 2000/NT etc).

There's no doubt that Microsoft(MS) OS(s) have the lions share of the desktop market(both home & office) all around the world. Reasons for this:

* Pricing for MS products is justifiable in terms of US salaries etc.

* There is an existing huge investment in MS hardware and software, which makes a transfer of technology a bad idea.

* MS has genuinely improved from the days of Windows 95 and has become a much more stabler and prettier OS in XP, albeit at the cost of much greater hardware requirements. Since the cost of hardware dropped, the two factors were balanced.

As far as the subcontinent is concerned, the entire scenario is reversed.
* Pricing of MS products is way too high for third-world salaries.

* There's not much existing investment into MS products.

* The hardware prices havent dropped as much in India, making the increased requirements of the more stable XP a burden.

Yet given these factors I'll hazard that MS "sells" way more then free Linux. That when:

* Day to day operations such as browsing, checking email, listening to music, watching movies, ripping/writing CD's & DVD's is equally easy and intuitive, and to top it, safer and less resource intensive in Linux.

* Free office productivity tools such as Openoffice provide compatible document formats in addition to platform-independent document formats such as PDF.

* Every conceivable programming tool(s) such as language libraries, compilers, editors, RADs(Rapid Application Development), IDEs(Integrated Development Environments) are freely available.

* It is a known fact that GNU compilers for C/C++ etc are superior to their MS counterparts, while GNU libraries are less resource intensive and have lesser bugs and inherent exploits(which hackers use so often to bring a MS machine to its knees). Stuff like Perl, Python, Awk, Tcl/Tk are a boon to programmers no matter what they engage in.

* Oracle, PostGRE sql and even puny MySql servers(can run on Linux machines) outclass or match MS SQL servers.

Given the numerous advantages of Linux and the resources that are available, its a mystery why home users and offices in India continue and persist with MS and on the hand, shy away from Linux.

Finally, MS might be a blood sucker of an org, but at the end of the day its still a company on US soil, and there's no reason to believe that in the future when cyber warfare might become more of a reality than sci-fi, the US govt asks MS to send `security upgrades' to its machines wolrdwide or to a specific geographic zone, which crashes those machines or corrupts vital information. We must remember when IBM came up with their 128-bit DES(Data Encryption Standard) encryption system, NSA forced them to use a 56-bit encrypted key, `cause NSA didnt possess the computing power to break a 128-bit key. In this regard, China has already built a customised OS which it calls "Red Flag Linux"(modelled closely on the Red Hat Linux distribution) and it uses this in its govt installations.

Admittedly there are some points of hardware incompatibilities because the hardware manufacturers dont have enough reason to invest in compatibility with Linux systems, but within an increasing market for Linux, their indifference is bound to be temporary. In this regard there are numerous examples of companies in the US traditionally providing applications for windows machines which have now started shipping compatible softwares(drivers) for the Linux platform. From a personal perspective, I now use windows only to voice-chat on yahoo. On a day when I have to do no coding(or I dont do any programming), I dont have to even open the much feared command console!;-) Also considering the painless manner of customizing the OS to "carry" a host of languages such as hindi, urdu, tamil, teleugu, gujrati, marathi, bengali, punjabi & assamese from what I recall, a Linux based machine has the potential to truly reach the masses. This means a native person(say a maharashtrian) will be able to read the news, write email & chat in his local toungue, marathi. Linux has the ability to be configured at 7(or 5, I forgot) different security levels from "weak" to "paranoid", the last level making it ideal for military and govt use.

India has aped the world as far as technology is concerned for long. The advent of Gnu/Linux gives India a unique opportunity to surge ahead given the economic fillip and the strong-IT base we possess. Isnt it time the Indian IT ministry took marketing Linux much more seriously(if it all is considering at the moment)? Isnt it time that the Indian IT-whiz kids started doing some thinking of their own? Isnt it time that people(the educate class)rose from their idle states & shed their prejudices(and fears) to embrace something new? How does Pakistan figure in this regard?

A discussion on Terrorism

2005-06-21T05:00:00.000-07:00

Sometime back I got to exchange views on terrorism or islamic terrorism with a Pakistani as opinionated as me and thankfully articulate too. It led to some interesting conversation and was an eye-opener for me. That conversation did run very long. My contribs in black and his in blue.
--
"one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter". this statement is used to justify terrorism the world over. to buttress this claim, people fall back to bhagat singh and the IRA.

there is however one important difference between islamic terrorism and the above scenarios. terrorism before had a nationalistic identity. if bhagat singh threw a bomb in the assembly, he was fighting for national independence. if che guevara and his insurgents fought, they were fighting to free cuba from its dictator. the IRA atleast initially targeted the british troops in ireland.

however islamic terrorism has no nationalistic identity. it is not about a group against one country. islamic terrorism itself is spread across groups in various nations, with each group aiding the other in terms of funds, intelligence and arms. hamas is not one group. neither is al-quaeeda. what is their aim? what/who are they waging war against? who's oppression are they fighting for? the answers to these questions are very different from bhagat singh's brand of terrorism.

let us see the situation at home.

one of the major operatives in kashmir today is the LeT. who started it? maulana mazood. where? in paksitan. of what nationality is masood? pakistani. the same guy indian authorities let go when the IA plane was hijacked to kandahar. we lost an indian civilian. was that not an act of terrorism? LeT attacked our parliament & red fort. is that freedom fighting? the main operatives of LeT are afghan fighters. an external group founded by an external fellow, funded & armed by external agencies fighting for the "freedom" of an indigenous people? carrying out attacks on foreign soil? that's freedom fighting? who's freedom for god's sake?

i heard the same arguments when punjab was in the throes of terrorism. yes terrorism. not freedom fighting. shopping areas, where people frequented every saturday being bombed, bombs in unattended objects, bomb hoaxes, office complexes brimming with security personnel with bomb squads standing by, sniffer dogs around; people in puja pandals(during durga puja) being gunned down(one happened not more than 5 km from our puja place). thats the "freedom fighting" i've seen. believe me, i didnt want any freedom. i just wanted to stop thinking about looking under the seat every time i stepped into a bus. stop looking at an unattended suitcase in a bus-stop. i just wanted the headlines, screaming of death and bomb blasts in all the hangout places for middle class families, to stop.

there is NO blurred line. there is no fine line. this is BS. plain and simple.

and whats the argument in the US bombing afghanistan and isrealis firing from gunships? you mean to say that US specifically targeted civilians through their bombs? or the isrealis fire shells at people standing outside a mosque? or put bombs in market places? all in all are they specifically targetting civilians? i am not trying to condone the deaths of innocent afghan civilians or palestines or whatever. there is a fault in policy here. surely we need to protest against that. but these do NOT blur what terrorism as we know it today is.
--
I haven't read the earlier posts ... so I'd be replying only to yours ... I've tried to explain the best I can ... hope you get the gist of it ...

terrorism before had a nationalistic identity. if bhagat singh threw a bomb in the assembly, he was fighting for national independence. if che guevara and his insurgents fought, they were fighting to free cuba from its dictator. the IRA atleast initially targeted the british troops in ireland.

Since you're terming these movements as terrorism yourself, do you think its justifiable when based on nationalistic identity?

islamic terrorism has no nationalistic identity

First of all, its not always terrorism ... how many Pakistanis have you ever come across who have claimed the killing of civilians or bombing of public buildings as justified and who do not condemn such activities?

Secondly, the nationality is Islam itself ... it might not make much sense to the secular Indians around here, but it does make sense to most of us ... forgetting about the new regime-inspired Pakistanis, whose new national anthem is Sab se pehlay Pakistan ... come to Pakistan and ask any common man on the street about his views on Afghanistan or Iraq and you'll find out ... and I can safely say that the mass of Pakistani public are not religious fanatics ...

external agent, external funding, external training. fighting against my country and my countrymen. that is a terrorist and NOT a freedom fighter.

Most Indians equate the Islamic Freedom Fighters quickly to Kashmir, or at best to Afghanistan and Iraq, and start pronouncing judgements ... these same people have fought in Bosnia and Chechnya ... do you think them terrorists? These people were external agents, had external training and were externally funded ...

The Bosnian war is a glaring example of international complacency ... the United Nations was not willing to take action ... all that the Islamic World came up with was to pass a belated resolution in OIC of sending 16000 troops ... which, by the way, never came into effect ... all of Nato's action came too late ... the Chechen war is another such example where the Russians were effectively given a free hand by the international community ... the case of Kashmir is worsened because of the involvement of the Pakistani government ... but should we label those handful of volunteers, primarily Afghans and Arabs, who risked and also gave their lives for another nation as terrorists? Probably you can ... I don't ...

If Kashmir is really a matter of terrorism,not freedom struggle, and the Kashmiris are really not interested in separation from India, why not have a plebescite and shut us up once and for all?

There is a good and a bad side to everything ... and while most of us would endorse the cause they're pursuing, we would not necessarily endorse all their means ...

For the past few years, and especially since the 9/11 incident, people who don't even have a point start chanting AlQaeda AlQaeda at the mention of Islam ... thats giving too much credit to AlQaeda ... everything done by any Muslim is NOT Islamic ... and any Muslim fighting any regime is NOT an Al Qaeda agent ... there is one no closely knit, well-organized, mercenary organization, master-minded by an evil genius hiding in some cave in Afghanistan/Pakistan, with the entire world, from USA around to the Philippines, woven in its web ... whose sole aim is to exterminate any infidels walking on the face of the earth ... I read This in Foreign Policy, but they have it under archived articles, so I've posted a mirror link ...

Its understandable that these organizations are not as structured or as disciplined as a regular army ... and are often manipulated for the worse for political gains by different governments ... some of them have contradictory aims ... few of them tend to take the easy way out ... gross mistakes, intentional or not, are bound to happen ... and most governments are blurring the divide between a terrorist and a freedom fighter on purpose to further their own political objectives ... but there IS a divide ...

What I'm trying to suggest is that most of these are reactionary organizations ... and while the intentions are genuine, the execution is not always perfect ... which is understandable for any armed rebellion ... if you think they can be curbed through power, the answer is NO ... violence will beget more violence ... if the world wants to end this cycle, it has to come up with political answers ... how many countries will the United States take over? They're already masters of the two supposed training grounds of Al Qaeda ... where are these people popping up now from?

I saw in the other thread you claimed that there were no Muslim volunteers fighting in the Bosnian and Chechen wars ... I'm not very good at googling, I always seem to choose the worst keywords, but here's what I came up with ... I'm sure if you try it, you'd come up with more results ...

Coming from primarily western, more importantly, west-oriented sources, they don't sound too flattering ... but they still provide a proof of my assertions ...

Arab 'Afghans' are in Bosnia helping fellow Muslims fight the Christian Serbs. Between 200 and 300 of these veterans, including non-Arab Muslims, are based in Zenica where they are widely feared. The number of non-Bosnian Muslims in the military is estimated at between 500 and 1000 from a dozen countries in the Middle East. From all accounts, they have fought with some distinction. Some 300 'Afghans', organized into a unit known as 'the Guerrillas', operate with the Bosnian 3rd Corps in Zenica. Algerian FIS leader Kamar Kharban, a veteran of the Afghan war, has visited Bosnia several times over the last two years.
- This is probably dated but somewhat relevant ...

Russia, of course, was only too happy to exploit both the presence of Arab volunteers in Chechen militias and the presence of Chechen volunteers in Afghanistan to have the whole place branded as a hub of international terrorism.
- About the Chechen war ...

Although I also found a counter-argument against the Afghan/Arab involvement in Chechnya here ...

Make up your own mind ...
--
thanks for your perspective and opinion.

Since you're terming these movements as terrorism yourself, do you think its justifiable when based on nationalistic identity?

does it help if i put terrorism in quotes? since we are debating what falls under freedom-fighting and what falls under terrorism, here is my take.

an indigenous people fighting with external/internal training, arms and funding, against its own rulers(democratically elected or otherwise) can be labelled as freedom fighting. but is the definition indeed so simple? we have to take into account the conflict zone. if the conflict zone is limited to the land in which these indigenous people reside, its freedom fighting. if it extends beyond it, they have crossed into terrorism. besides the conflict zone, we have to identify the targets of these indigenous freedom fighters. if their targets are confined to the instruments(belonging to the ruling entity) for exerting control(military, police) and their aides(informants) it's within the limits of freedom fighting. when they begin targeting non-indigenous civilians & indigenous civilians with a difference of opinion from theirs, they have crossed into terrorism.

now unless we agree on what we classify as terrorism and freedom fighting, there's no point giving examples. in any case since since you have taken the pains to put down examples, i'll go over them one by one.

chechnya: indigenous people fighting russian army. freedom fighting. jihadi fighters join in. still freedom fighting. massacre of school children. way , way, way into terrorism.

bosnia: this example is not relevant here, as bosnia was not fighting the croats and serbs to regain control but stop their advance into their own territory. and since the jihadi elements stayed within the above defined limits, they didnt cross the line into terrorism.

kashmir: crossed the line many many years ago, and many many times. whats more, the bulk of of what you call freedom fighters is external in today's times. what i fail to understand (i put this in the other thread), is how an external group funded & armed externally can claim to be fighting for the freedom of an indigenous people.

so whats the moral of the story? the moral is there's a thin line that separates jihadi style freedom fighting and islamic terrorism, and it doesnt take much for one thing to lead to the other. witness chechnya. witness kashmir. whats more, the same jehadi elements which joined forces with the chechens to fight their cause, and the jehadi elements who joined forces with the weak bosnians to fight the militarily stronger croats and serbs, and the jehadi elements wreaking terrorism in kashmir all are part of the larger problem of islamic miltancy. the same jehadi who fights the russian army because the russians were bombing chechen civilians, will have no qualms putting a bomb in a market place in srinagar and blowing kashmiri civilians to bits. so you shouldnt be saying that look the same jihadi elements that i call terrorists are fighting a just cause. because i too can say the same jehadis are blowing up civilians/soldiers in my country and i have rightly called them so.

now to pick your posts, and answer individual points.

First of all, its not always terrorism ... how many Pakistanis ... as justified and who do not condemn such activities?
so if you condem such activities, you will not say such activities always fall under terrorism? me unclear on your intent.

Secondly, the nationality is Islam itself ...
500 years ago, i would have clapped. today its an anachronism. just because you are a muslim does NOT give you any right to break the law of another sovereign land and go "help" muslims in another sovereign land purpotedly under "oppression" from their rulers. if you have a problem go tell your government. they can take it up at the international level diplomatically or wage a war. it doesnt mean that you insert jehadi elements in the sovereign country and start a bombing and killing civilians/army. forming an opinion is fine. we are all entitled to our opinions. but islamic militancy is no way to express it, not in the civilized world atleast.

The Bosnian war is a glaring example of international complacency
there are 52 muslim countries in the world(or so junaid told us). why couldnt they dispatch an allied force to bosnia? why must the jehadi be an answer? do you realise that the jehadi who went and fought was no better than a mercenary? and mercenaries do not come under the purview of geneva conventions on war. so they can be treated any way after capture. what would have bitten the arabic/islamic nations had they given sanctity to the same islamic support by sending regular troops?

violence will beget more violence
exactly. which is why the jehadi style fighting wont do.

if the world wants to end this cycle, it has to come up with political answers
it takes two to tango my friend. the islamic world must rise from its slumber and reign in these jihadi elements and do their bit. then only can a political solution be found. no govt is going to negotiate with a gun to its head and this is precisely what the jehadis are doing.

I saw in the other thread you claimed that there were no Muslim volunteers fighting in the Bosnian and Chechen wars
i meant the nature of the conflict is internal. i was not aware jihadi fighers were involved in the bosnian conflict. the chechen example had surprisingly slipped from my mind.

If Kashmir is really a matter of terrorism,not freedom struggle, and the Kashmiris are really not interested in separation from India, why not have a plebescite and shut us up once and for all?
here's the answer. consider a state where you have three groups of people: A, B, C. A wants independence, B wants to align with country X, and C wants to remain aligned to country Y. drive out C. terrorise A. hold plebiscite. result? "All people of the state have voted in favor of aligning with X".. hurrah!

and you must be incredibly naive if you think pakistan(at the govt level) supports the kashmir issue merely(or at all) because its "oh so concerned" about the welfare of the kashmiri people and wants their 'freedom'.

gawd.. gimme a break.. 8-|
--
In the sentence "one person's freedom-fighter is another's terrorist" the two words need not be taken literally. The former doesn't necessarily have to be actually fighting for freedom to be called a freedom-fighter. It is just that his idea behind the fight has to be good, whatever the fight be. So if there are people fighting for the "Will of Allah", though they aren't trying to liberate a piece of land or anything, they are still some people's "freedom-fighters" because in the eyes of those people the cause is noble and fully justfied. So the two words "terrorist" and "freedom-fighter", when used in conjuction are more likely to connote the idea of "good" and "bad" rather than their literal meanings. Therefore, if those defintions are kept in mind, it is hard to label these violent people either "terrorists" or "freedom-fighters" because it is hard to judge whether the cause they are furthering is good or bad. In case you consider "terrorist" and "freedom-fighter" for their literal meanings, then of course the distinction becomes very clear and in that case there indeed are no blurry lines. We must apprecite this semantic distinction.
--
If a Jehadi fights Indian armed forces in Kashmir, I'll have to look for the goal he's fighting for before calling him either a freedom-fighter or a terrorist

if the jehadi is an external agent, i'd have no problems in labelling him a terrorist in this case. some of these chaps are even sudanese!! :0
google for "kashmir sudanese jihadi". now what business does a sudanese national have in coming to india and attacking our armymen? when india is not at war with sudan. that is an illegal act.
and the most active groups in kashmir today, the Jaish-e-M & LeT, are not indigenous groups. neither in composition, funding, arms or training. agreed there must *some* kashmiri miltants too, but do these handful of people have a right to hold the entire state/nation to ransom for their exclusive demands? and its not as if i exonerate the GoI of any blame for whats going on. its squarely to blame for its flawed policies regarding kashmir that things have gotten so bad.

Therefore, if those defintions are kept in mind, it is hard to label these violent people either "terrorists" or "freedom-fighters" because it is hard to judge whether the cause they are furthering is good or bad.
in my opinion, its not the cause, but the means employed that merits the attention. OBL's cause is very just. he doesnt want americans interfering in arab policies. he doesnt want the house of saud to continously voilate islamic norms or the edicts of the Quoran. I am sure many people in the arab/islamic world feel the former rather strongly, if not the latter. but can we say the same abt OBL's means?
--
in my opinion, its not the cause, but the means employed that merits the attention. OBL's cause is very just. but can we say the same abt OBL's means?

In my opinion, it is both. I agree that in the case of Osama bhai one needn't look at the cause. The means are so unacceptable that they can't be used to justify almost any cause at all. But in some cases, when the means are not as heinous, the only way to decide between "terrorist" and "freedom-fighter" is to understand the cause for which the fight is being waged. An example of the latter case is a militant facing armed forces in Kashmir (and not killing regular folks on the street). In this case, you must know what he's fighting for and if that is justified or not before you can label him either a "freedom-dude" or a "terrorist". So here's the pseudo-code:

begin {
input (militant);

if (militant.means.heinousness >= HEINOUSNESS CEILING) {
output("TERRORIST");
}
else if (militant.cause.justified == TRUE) {
output ("FREEDOM-FIGHTER");
}
else {
output ("TERRORIST");
}
end.
--
So we're moving towards common ground ... or aren't we?

Firstly, nothing in politics is black and white ... you give me two inches, and I'll give you two as well ...

Secondly, I'm trying to talk in a global perspective ... not just limited to India and Kashmir ... India aur Kashmir say bahar bhi bari duniya hai meray bhai ...

Anyway ... what I was trying to say was much near to what Gurinder here said ... he is just better at expressing it ...

I agree with Wajid ... somewhat ... Jihadi is a much misused term ... both by the Muslims and the non-Muslims ...

To reply to your post ...

This is going to be long ...

I'll go through your definition so we can hopefully find more common ground ...

an indigenous people fighting with external/internal training, arms and funding, against its own rulers(democratically elected or otherwise) can be labelled as freedom fighting.

Why only indigenous? If you are accepting the right of an outside power to train, fund and arm your indigenous fighters, why should providing help in terms of fighting units be illegal? If, by that single addition, your freedom struggle turns into terrorism, then you're virtually labelling almost all freedom fighters throughout history as terrorists ... there is always an interested foreign power ... for me, as long as the foreign elements are supporting the indigenous ones, I deem it legal ...

if the conflict zone is limited to the land in which these indigenous people reside, its freedom fighting. if it extends beyond it, they have crossed into terrorism.

Again I differ ... somewhat ... would you count Udham Singh as a terrorist since he took the field of battle to London instead of keeping it confined to India?? or just a mere avenger? I know I won't ... How about IRA's assasination attempt against Margaret Thatcher ?? I hope you get what I'm trying to say?

we have to identify the targets of these indigenous freedom fighters. if their targets are confined to the instruments(belonging to the ruling entity) for exerting control(military, police) and their aides(informants) it's within the limits of freedom fighting.

Agreed. But would you like to add econmic interests in the list too? after all, thats what hurts most countries in this time ... but I'm 50-50 on this one ... not decided ... as this would give sanction to almost every type of aggression ... take your pick ...

when they begin targeting non-indigenous civilians & indigenous civilians with a difference of opinion from theirs, they have crossed into terrorism.

Agreed.

Regarding the examples...

You're limiting the definition of a fight for freedom to occupation ... to me anybody fighting for freedom, be it against aggression or occupation, counts as a fight for your freedom ... so yes ... I would still include Bosnia and Chechnya as valid examples ...

And of course, the most obvious of all examples ... which I forgot to mention ... from where this word Jihadi came into common usage ... Afghanistan ... all through the Afghan war it was these Jihadis, not all of them were indigenous, who fought the Russians ... not for the Americans (being used by the Americans? yes ... fighting for them? no) ... but under the banner of Islam ... and they were never labelled as terrorists ...

all are part of the larger problem of islamic miltancy.

In my opinion, Islamic militancy is not the problem ... it is a reaction to other problems ...

the same jehadi who fights the russian army because the russians were bombing chechen civilians, will have no qualms putting a bomb in a market place in srinagar and blowing kashmiri civilians to bits.

You are assuming too much ... I said it before, I'll say it again ... there is no single, structured Jihadi organization wreaking havoc in the entire world ... these are loose, mostly small pockets, largely unstructured organizations ... quite a few of which are rogue ... exploiting Islam's slogan for political and personal benefits ... involvement of political governments makes matters even worse, even for the well-meaning groups ... but that does not, and should not, take away anything from those who have fought and are fighting justly and valiantly ... if you keep tarring everybody with the same stick, then we'll get nowhere ...

To carry on...

500 years ago, i would have clapped. today its an anachronism.

If you are talking in terms of Muslim nationalism based on Khilafat, then even 500 years ago there was none ...

I am not talking about Muslim governments but the Muslim nation ... you cannot overlook the undercurrent that runs through the world among the Muslim populations by using difficult words, whose meanings I have to look up on m-w.com ... but yes ... this feeling of nationalism is real ... I would obviously feel more strongly towards any injustices in Pakistan itself ... but I would also feel more strongly against injustices towards other Muslims compared to other people ...

You can clap if you want to ... you won't need a time machine ...

if you have a problem go tell your government. they can take it up at the international level diplomatically or wage a war.

there are 52 muslim countries in the world(or so junaid told us). why couldnt they dispatch an allied force to bosnia? why must the jehadi be an answer?

I thought I had cleared the case of Bosnia ... the 52 Muslim countries in OIC did pass a resolution for sending a 16000 strong contingent of combined forces ... but that never materialised ... why? Because OIC doesn't have any legitimacy on the international level ... they still need the approval of the UN ... and need I mention, none was coming ... so even if a government was sincerely interested, it had to go through what you're terming illegal means ...

- violence will beget more violence
- exactly. which is why the jehadi style fighting wont do.

Which is also why an armed attempt to curb these movements forcefully won't do either ... you curb one and another two will pop up ...

And finally...

it takes two to tango my friend. the islamic world must rise from its slumber and reign in these jihadi elements and do their bit. then only can a political solution be found. no govt is going to negotiate with a gun to its head and this is precisely what the jehadis are doing.

That is what I meant by a political solution in any case ... a comprehensive political solution ... after all, these organizations are as much a product of oppression in the Islamic World itself as external ones ...

and you must be incredibly naive if you think pakistan(at the govt level) supports the kashmir issue merely(or at all) because its "oh so concerned" about the welfare of the kashmiri people and wants their 'freedom'.

Here's what I wrote:
Its understandable that these organizations are not as structured or as disciplined as a regular army ... and are often manipulated for the worse for political gains by different governments

Need I always mention Kashmir by name? Its not the only example in the world ... need I mention that again?
--
algorithm to sahi hai. but there's one glitch. militant.means.heinousness is not constant. if you look at examples all around the world, most often than not, it's an increasing function of time.
so as i said before, most often than not, it just spills into wrong from right, from just to unjust.
An example of the latter case is a militant facing armed forces in Kashmir (and not killing regular folks on the street)

does this example really exist? if it does, does it convey popular sentiment? if it doesnt, it can so easily be an anti-social element bent on his own agenda. if it does, it falls into the category of what i think is FF.
--
So we're moving towards common ground ... or aren't we? yea, somewhat.
back to the classifications.
Why only indigenous? If you are accepting the right of an outside power to train..
an outside power doesnt have a right to train. the indigenous people have a right to summon the resources to fight from wherever they please. and why only indigenous fighters? hmm... here's a slight modification. external fighters are alright if the indigenous people have faith in them and if these fighters reflect the popular sentiment of the people. but the problem with this is two-fold. firstly its difficult to ascertain the popular sentiment of the people, if others are doing the fighting for them. secondly, how can we be sure that the people were not coerced into acceptance by these external agents? just so that you dont think i am being a bloody academic dancing on theoretical mumbo-jumbo, i'd like to point out that in interviews of common kashmiri junta, people have complained of threats from afghan militants to kashmiri youths, to either join them or perish at their hands. i recommend you read up the south-asia section in www.bbc.co.uk, if you havent done so already. the interviews are there somewhere, not deeply hidden. shouldnt be very difficult to find. so in the end indigenous fighters lend much more credibility to the cause.

udham singh & margaret thachter: just coz i am indian doest mean i'll summarily classify all actions of our freedom fighters(fighting against the british raj) as just. what udham singh did was wrong. his motive was just, if personal vendetta is a just motive. part of his statement:
I did it because I had a grudge against him, he deserved it. I don't belong to any society or anything else.(source)
and IRA? the moment they started bombing london pubs they crossed the line. and you talk of assassination of a head of state!

so i stand by definition of limiting the conflict zone.

@afghan fighters: ofcourse they were not labelled terrorists. who were they fighting? their own president. where? in their own country. where does it go against my definition(s)?
not for the Americans
are u kidding me? when the conflict started, afghanistan was under a communist president. it was the height of the cold-war, and the US was increasinly concerned that the soviets were using afghanistan to increase their sphere of influence in the middle-east. the jehadi fighters borne out of those times, were solely a creation of the US. and in the end, was it good for afghanistan? the russians left behind a war-ravaged country & replete with armed-men who knew nothing better than to be used as mercenaries all around the world in the name of religion. it factored the country into groups, each of which competed with each other on how much cruelty they could inflict on the local populace. civil war, civil strife, one of the poorest countries of the world. what good was it in the end?

You are assuming too much
by the same jehadi i didnt mean the same person! i meant the same sentiment of fighting in the name of religion. thats what unites all the loose structured groups.
even for the well-meaning groups
give me one example of such a group.

I would also feel more strongly against injustices towards other Muslims compared to other people
did i say i had objections to that? feeling for your brothers is all fine and dandy, unless and until it translates into maiming the other people *and* their governments. and i can safely extrapolate this to other pan-xxx'isms(feeling of a global unity among any group).

Which is also why an armed attempt to curb these movements forcefully won't do either ... you curb one and another two will pop up ...
how else do you curb armed militants? atleast initially? and if you accept that no govt is going to negotiate with a gun to its head and this is precisely what the jehadis are doing, we have fallen into an evil cycle. jihad ->armed attempt to curb them->jihad. so whats the way out?

a comprehensive political solution.after all, these organizations are as much a product of oppression in the Islamic World itself as external ones
yea. but i am increasily inclined to believe that this comprehensive political solution analysts talk about is an utopian idea. more so since the means of oppression are internal. there is not one muslim democratic country(is there?) & the hotbeds of islamic militancy are countries with an autocracy.

i may be wrong, but instead of a comprehensive political solution, muslim nations should be looking at democracy and socio-economic development.
--
I've only read your posts, so I'll reply only to those quickly ...

external fighters are alright if the indigenous people have faith in them and if these fighters reflect the popular sentiment of the people.

Agreed, with the reservation that the assessment of popular sentiment is subjective.

just coz i am indian doest mean i'll summarily classify all actions of our freedom fighters(fighting against the british raj) as just. what udham singh did was wrong.

Ok ... my mistake ... bad example ... I always had the impression that Udham Singh's killing of O'Dwyer was based on nationalistic sentiments ... but in any case, that doesn't take away anything from the point I was trying to make ... that is, broadening the limits of the conflict zone, as defined by you ... to be extended to the territory of the usurper ...

Secondly, I did not quote Udham Singh's example to court your nationalistic sentiments ... this was just the first thing that popped into my head ...

and IRA? the moment they started bombing london pubs they crossed the line. and you talk of assassination of a head of state!

I was not discussing the legality of all of IRA's actions ... just the one instance ... the failed assassination attmept against Margaret Thatcher on English soil ... and that was a bold move ...

If a people are being suppressed, who else is more responsible than the head of the state of the oppressing country? To me, thats reason enough for an attempt at his/her life if that falls within the scheme of things ... often enough, it changes the political and/or military scenario completely ...
@afghan fighters:
where does it go against my definition(s)

I mentioned the Afghan war in context with the external fighters issue ... probably the largest instance of volunteers fighting, under the name of Islam, without the official consent of their respective governments ...

- not for the Americans
- are u kidding me?

Here's what I wrote:

not for the Americans (being used by the Americans? yes ... fighting for them? no)

I know the story of the Afghan War and its importance in the cold war ... but to say that those people's intentions were to help USA win the cold war, would be incorrect ... from the Muslim point of view ... first of all, they served to liberate Afghanistan from the Russians ... secondly they proved a strong line of defence towards possible Russian attempts at communizing/controlling other Muslim countries ... Afghanistan was not an end in itself, but a means to an end in the scheme of things for Soveit Union ...

what good was it in the end?

Afghanistan's civil strife in the post-Russian period was due to the manner the resistance was manipulated ... the Americans supported the resistance groups, through Pakistan of course ... armed them and trained them ... but they never bothered to create a unified resistance movement ... because the factions were serving their purposes very well ... and when you have so many armed and trained factions in a country without a government, anarchy is bound to be the rule of the day ...

Plus, the later civil war was a contest primarily between regional and tribal leaders ... people like Mulla Umar et all supposedly returned to their everyday businesses ... Taliban, who were the ones fighting in the name of Islam in this period, was only a reaction to the in-fighting ... but thats a different discussion altogether ...

feeling for your brothers is all fine and dandy, unless and until it translates into maiming the other people *and* their governments.

I thought I agreed to this? The only point I was making there was the existence of a nationalistic sentiment among the Muslims ...

so whats the way out?

There is no easy way out ... you have to tread carefully ... you cannot bully everybody into adopting a democratic system ... engagement, not military, but political and economic is the key ... the socio-economic development you talk of is definitely a part of the solution ...

A high-handed approach won't solve anything ... the USA took over Afghanistan to remove a government supposedly harbouring and actively supporting terrorists ... is Afghanistan free of any such elements now? Do you think it'll be free in the next five years? How many other countries would they take over to solve this issue?
--
@ahmed:
with the reservation that the assessment of popular sentiment is subjective.
meine bhi wohi kaha. see here..
firstly its difficult to ascertain the popular sentiment of the people

is it okay to target political figures? imo, not a good idea. take for example militants in kashmir targetting electoral candidates before the kashmir elections last yr(?), so as to distrupt the elections. quite a few were gunned down. then again militants killed abdul ghani lone, the hurriyat leader, when his peaceful means of struggle started going against their violent means. he was killed because he had a difference of opinion on the means, for the same cause. & lets say the IRA was successful in its attempt, would it have expediated their cause? ek PM gaya, tau doosra aa jaayega. and the brit troops would have hit the IRA even harder. it would have led to an increased conflict, and diminished the hope for a political solution. then take the example of the militant attack on the indian parliament. if i am not wrong, pakistanis think it was staged managed by the indian state to defame pak. could be. but for a while if we accept it were militants who attacked, and had they succeeded in bumping off a few, india and pak would be at war right now.

regarding the afghan fighters. my bad. what i should have written was "afghan conflict. it doesnt go against the classification(s) i made earlier".

The only point I was making there was the existence of a nationalistic sentiment among the Muslims
& extremism is a likely product of the same. will it succeed in its objective(s)? that the future will tell us.
what does the past tell us? militancy has not produced any solutions. kashmir, palestine, chechnya, afghanistan, sri-lanka are proof. the sein-fenn(sp?) disowned the IRA & entered into political negotiations, to find a solution.
in the end, the fact remains that extremists are not powerful enough to destabilize a nation. and the guerrilla tactics plus external support almost all militant groups enjoy, makes it very difficult if not impossible for a govt to suppress the militancy by force. so while a conflict ensues, no real solutions are found, because supremacy by force is not achieved. in the end, its a self-defeating move.
--

This is a mere excerpt out of the myraid threads this discussion went into, spread over quite a few days. :-)

Pragmatic reform please?

2005-06-21T03:24:00.000-07:00

For long I have accused the idealistic reformers like Gandhi and Savarkar(am still reading up on him, so I might change my view of him as a reformer, or stick by it) of being just that. Idealistic. No thought given to pragmatism.

When gandhi branded harijans as such, and espoused equal love of God for them, he didnt realize that in practical terms he was playing into divisive politics. Or maybe he did but couldnt help it. I squarely blame him for initiating this trend of caste politics, the manifestation of which we see in the BSP and a host of other parties.

When savarkar espoused his hindutva, he paid no attention to the easy misuse of the "hindu" word in his philosophy. The VHP sees a clear hindu majority everywhere and has shamelessly changed the context of "hindu" in Savarkar's hindutva to mean that of the hindu religion from the original context of hindu being a region concept, the people(of all faiths) living in hindustan. Somewhere along the way, the concept of Sanatan Dharma has been lost. It doesnt even figure in the BJP's terminology.

Then you find people singing paens in the name of such hindu reformers. bah! Anglicised reform or not, I hold reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy a tad more palatable, because their actions had a positive effect on society. Not being as great as Gandhi and Savarkar, was a blessing in disguise for the nation. When individuals espouse philosophy that is too good for the common man to follow, it makes demons out of humans. Same with Lenin.

India & Pak perspectives

2005-06-21T00:19:00.000-07:00

India:

Okay, so I think I'm not the only one here who gets the feeling that Indians are unwilling to appreciate anything Pakistani, and moreover are unwilling to take any criticism from a Pakistani (though they might take the same criticism from anyone else).

I think there's an underlying issue here, of Indian pride.

I think an Indian generally feels that India has taken the harder road, the moral road, the road less travelled by, and got where it has by its own effort, in the face of tremendous odds and no help and little appreciation from abroad (read: esp. the US)

There is a feeling in India, that coming from the same colonial morass, we as a country have fought hard to maintain a democracy, to be secular, to give reasonably equal treatment to religious minorities (some would claim, to the point of having discriminated against the majority), to do everything by the book. While Pakistan, which even the CIA acknowledges has hosted training camps for cross-border militants, which is widely known to have indulged in nuclear proliferation, which has never pretended to be secular, which has instigated multiple wars against us, which has never sustained a democratic polity, STILL manages to be the one getting a larger amount of foreign aid (at least as % of GDP), still has gotten preferential treatment from both China and the US (the latter despite it's claims to be a champion of "democracy"), and basically manages to keep up/get ahead in the world economic and international political race in all manner of ways.

It's a feeling that while we've gotten where we are by blood and sweat, Pakistan has gotten there by cheating, by being in a strategically lucky geopolitical situation.

So while we know we're far from being perfect, we know we have faults, the LAST place we'll take criticism from is Pakistan.

Now i'm sure Pakistanis have a very different view of things. High time we discussed it.

Pakistan:

The things have recently changed I guess. Before two years, i don't think so there were many Pakistanis who were a bit interested in taking any criticism from India. The ideals which exist in India may not necessarily exist in Pakistan.

All the events that happened after independence or even before that, there has been a general idea that Indians are not the well-wishers of Pakistanis, it has been compounded by the examples of all the mishaps that happened in the past 55 years. Plus, many Pakistanis hated India on relegious basis, a war between the Islam and polytheism, a reflection from the pre-islamic times.

When I said, even ideals are different, i mean there are huge number of people who doesn't believe that democracy is the proper mode of governing, they think Caliphate is better, this view may be completely irrational and founded only on relegious basis, but that was there. Secondly, Secularism is equal to Atheism, in minds of many people here. In a state where 94% of people are Muslims, Secularism is not a very good mode they wanted to implement.
Plus, there have been an excess deviation towards overly relegious attitudes after the fall of USSR and rise of Taliban, that have made them to put Shariah in Jinnah's Secular Pakistan. So, even Pakistani don't think that Indians are better than Pakistanis because only because they are a secular democratic state.

So, in a general Pakistani view, Indian pride is an Indian delusion.

--
Cool exchange! :-)

Misplaced indignation

2005-06-20T21:54:00.000-07:00

In the post `The battle for enlighment' there was a discussion on the limits to freedom of expression. This is on similar lines, the reactions to an article.

The article:
He's hot, he is Indian Idol No 1

--BACHI KARKARIA
Indra can keep his corner office. The penthouse of the pantheon belongs to Shiva. Its decor bears the imprimatur of a Fortune-favoured designer, and yet, it's unmistakably bohemian. Shiva knows the rules to break them; he's awesome at shifting the goal posts.

He's comfortable with 'if you've got it, flaunt it'; he can swim with the sharks, and still find place in his heart for the littlest minnow. He wears the suit of divinity lightly. Yes, Mahadev is a maha-dude.

We've gone through a mind-churning manthan , through asceticism and socialism which have been sucked to the bottom of the centrifuge, and up has surged the cologned freedom to live life on our own terms.

In our new consumerist avatar, Ganesha is invoked to bless the triumphal entry of the Indian Elephant carrying the world in its howdah. We've shed our hypocrisy. Who other then to iconise than the patron saint of iconoclasts? Lord Shiva.

Hinduism's original persona of “ rinam kritva ghritam pivet ” - loosely translated as ' Njoy !' - had for long been suppressed by our pretensions of being an otherworldly, spiritual people who abjured the materialist high rise for the moral high ground.

It cost us dearly on several counts, from delaying the economic miracle to delaying AIDS control. But we've woken up and not only smelled the coffee, but learnt to make a Frappuccino.
--

Reactions to the article (from the users):

--this is dam bad. who is the fool written this article.he will go to naraka directly.

--This is an absolutely nauseating article. How dare the author comments on Gods of the Hindus. She better apologise for offending the followers of this religion.

--NAMASTE, i was searching on the intenet for articles about Shiva as i wanted to know what the hindu festival of Shivaratri involved. however, when i came across your article i was insulted to see it as i it is not very nice to mock Gods, no matter what religion they belong to. i myself am a christian but i believe in pluraliam ann i thouroughly respect the Hindu diety of Shiva. i think he is very merciful and mysticl. i was very disappointed in this article as i was greatly offecned. i hope you remove this article before you offend other people.

--this article is a disgusting piece of work, which reveals the shamelessness of the writer BACHI KARKARIA. hasn't he got any respects for the diety Shiva who is the destroyer of ignorance and giver of happiness? i suppose i feel sorry for your low level of intellect so you could not write about justfully about Shiva as your inadequate ability to write something so beautiful that suitably described Him. unbelievable that an Indian would write in such a malicious and disgraceful way. i suggest that you sort your attitude out and apologise for this disgusting piece of writing, and for the future ba careful of what you write as this wil not be tolerated again. i am waiting for your apology and suggest you take this article off the web page. a disgusted Hindu

--This is such an inappropriate article. Can the stupid author wrote something about Alla and get away with it?

--This is a very demeaning, insensitive and insulting article...that shows a total lack of class for a News paper of Times of India stature. Any such article against Christianity or Islam in the Christian World or Arab world would have forced bloody riots and closure of such sick Paper. You owe Hindus an unconditional apology. I have been out of India for the last 36 years and have mingled with Presidents to Prime Ministers and other dignitaries..no where have I found the elite so out of touch with reality.

--Hey Mr. Karkaria, if you had any touch of hinduism, or Indian culture, you wouldn't have done this. Would they dare to do the same for Jesus Christ or prophet Mohammad???

--I don't know what this article trying to convey except hurting even moderate god living citizens of India. One word to TOI - you are good in cheap journalism and keep it to yourself ...don't try to push your cheap shots into peoples's religious belief.

My objections:

Not worth a penny, but anyhow, whats the alleged `original persona' of hinduism?

“ rinam kritva ghritam pivet ” - loosely translated as ' Njoy !'? Properly translated as `eat ghee even if you have to borrow'.

Now thats a first. I always thought that was what Osho used to say.

The economic miracle was delayed because of hinduism's `ascetic' nature? Wow, and I thought the socialist brigade that you berate two paras above for the same reason are the very anti-thesis of hinduism! The irony of it all! Pray, where does hinduism suggest the ascetic life should be the all consuming mode of life? I wonder what Jyana-Yoga, Karma-Yoga, Bhakti-Yoga, Raja-Yoga are all about then. Just pick Raja-Yoga to make a point, how convenient.

AIDS control!! Whoa? Yea, stupid primitive hinduism. Ofcourse its to blame! Who cares if probably the spread of AIDS may have been accelerated at Osho's ashrams, what with sex and drugs all around. Which religion is against contraception? We all know that. Sure, go ahead and blame hinduism. We've never heard of the Pope. Aah, those `blinkers', what wonderful devices they are!!

Come to think of it, had we been eating ghee even if we had to borrow, forget the economic miracle, forget AIDS control, we would probably be the most penurious country and the largest number of HIV cases. We probably do fullfil the second criteria. Yeah, blame it on hinduism!
~

Hey, where else have we encountered the image of hinduism as an "an otherworldly, spiritual" religion? No prizes for guessing! Come to think of it, all the poor sods are only pained by Shiva's depiction of a `Maha-dude' from a `Mahadev'! Aaah, such self-righteous ignorance!

France & Hijab

2005-06-20T21:05:00.000-07:00

Kinda old news. I had something to say on the matter:

I dont see how banning religious symbols/clothing prefs increases assimilation. I think, those of you who are supporting this, are thinking in context of rising islamic fundamentalism and see the protests as a reflection of that. not fair. Lets change the picture. Nrahmins in south india wear lord vishnu/siva's mark on the forehead. Its a whitish mark, and extends across/along the forehead. It does look quite odd to the unaccustomed eye. People with that mark stand out. In the name of integration/assimilation, south Indian brahmins in X country are banned from wearing the mark. Hows that?

Another case in point: how do you think the non-muslim school kids who have never seen a muslim girl wear a headscarf, react when they get out of school and see one? Since assimilation is being made the moot point here, do you think its easier for a 18 year old guy who's grown up with a certain belief system to accept another belief system? As kids, if they are not exposed to the multiracial/multicultural nature of their society they'll never be able to accept differences in such societies.

What such completely useless, knee-jerk reaction like measures serves to do is in fact have the exact opposite effect. Muslims are hurt. They cant understand how does wearing a hijab, which comes as naturally to them as wearing underwear is for them and others, suddenly become a cause that prevents their assimilation into society. Hell, they follow the laws, pay taxes, vote, work with non-muslims, shop at the same places etc etc. No, they need to take their headscarf off to get accepted. Being a good citizen is not enough. How effing hypocritical is that? What such rat-brained measures do, is add a cause for the fundies/radicals to harp on and find more followers of their twisted interpretations of islam & increase the muslim vs non-muslim divide.

Indian muslim identity

2005-06-20T20:44:00.000-07:00

Excerpts from a discussion:

In a recent topic, I wrote what I felt abt the muslim world having an identity crisis. I have seen dichotomous behaviour of muslims in india, and I have often wondered if they too are confused wrto their identity, and confused wrto what they want. I guess I'll explain myself best with 2 scenarios:

1. When i was studying my engg, the nearest town to the univ was ranchi(formerly in bihar, now jharkhand). In ranchi quite close to my uncle's house, is a large muslim colony. I could overlook this colony from the rooftop of my uncle's house. During India-Pak cricket matches, if India won, almost the entire colony would observe a "blackout". Shops would close & lots of houses would be dimly lit, and street lights would mysteriously go off(no idea how they managed that). If Pak won, there used to be crackers burst and all, almost like diwali.

2. In another scenario, the gujarat riots were on. I was then working in calcutta. I was staying in salt lake, and the route to the city's "downtown" so to speak was through a large stretch of muslim dominated neighborhoods. I had to take an auto through that route. I was a little scared as calcutta had had its share of communal riots(during the partition) and old wounds open up during these times. The auto driver was muslim, so were 3 of my co-passengers(yeah its a shared auto funda). At no point did i get dirty glances, or at no place in that large colony, did i see speeches(inflammatory or otherwise) being given, no loudspeakers asking the people to stay calm. It seemed to be a normal business day, though there was no denying the undercurrent of tension. Yet it was remarkable that they held their nerve, and I learnt later that the community leaders over there talked to the people on almost a household basis & ensured sentiments didnt boil over and no untoward incident happened.

Two such different images. Hence the question.
--
The responses, each response is given one single color:

"A muslim is a muslim first and then someone else" is the base of Islam.

At the personal level, muslim's religious identity is supreme,rising above race, lang., geography or political jurisdiction which however has ceased to exist in recent times amongst few islamic intelectuals. There have been numerous debates on two-nation theory headed by such intellectuals despite the supremacy of islamic conservatism but the troubling part 'the uneducated(s)' have been left completely unattended which solely is to blame for your uncomfort in situation 1 and partly in situation 2.

Situation 1 is set in a backward city block. Muslim backwardness is highly related to lack of modern education. Due to lack of this, common Muslims have thoroughly failed to develop a clear vision about the secular and democratic path of the country. Lack of understanding of the new social and political challenge post independence became a complex problem for the community as a whole. With their history of religious encounters they were not prepared to accept cultural synthesis with other religion. Even though they came across many turning points since Independence to unload their mental burden, they always remained indecisive. Hence 11 Muslims are preferred over 9 hindus and 2 muslims.

a) Situation 2 has partial relation with aboveboard aforementioned reasons.
b) Having Muslims' 'already described identity' well set in our mind, we too often misjudge. Not everyone is illiterate and alike. This is the portion which gets easily defensive while talking about their nationalistic feeling much like a bihari, if he is said/asked some bad words/questions about bihar.
However, this part is good and due to them only, we have even some muslim support for UCC.

Why we hindu can't digest situation 1?
It's simply 'coz we blindly believe in Patel's statement "For a community to think that its interests are different from that of the country in which it lives, is a great mistake"
--
A Muslim's (iqbal's) perspective on nationalism

What thing is the State? or why
Must labour and capital so bloodily disagree?
Asia's time-honoured cloak grows ragged
and wears out . . .
For whom this new ordeal, or by whose hand prepared?

This guy, named Iqbal, criticized nationalism for a twofold reason: in Europe it had led to destructive racism and imperialism, and in India it was not founded on an adequate degree of common purpose. Till his death, he kept writing against individualism. To him, the whole idea of the new state, was about a resistance against individualism.
(content frm Britannica)

Gandhi's epistemology disowned the concept of the integral individual and replaced it with a "discontinuous personhood". Critical elements of Gandhi's vision included: sarvodaya, swadeshi, satyagraha, trusteeship, panchayat raj. Among the most important forerunners of Gandhi were a group centred on Bengal that included Swami Vivekananda, Margaret Noble (sister Nivedita) and Sri Aurobindo. They shared with Gandhi a belief in the essential spiritual nature of India, opposition to modernisation and stress on an organic society.
- From the book 'Gandhian Utopia' Richard G. Fox

Are you sure everyone in India has accepted individualism, yet? Given the current 'affinity' with the US, may be they will, but the kind of environment i was brought up in India, I didn't find individualism to be anywhere near its culture.

In the US, nobody cares what you are doing in your own community, as long as you don't harm anyone else (freedom of expression, a philosophical implication of individualism) If india is to adopt that, in its full integrity, we should be absolutely fine with some people believing to be the chosen one, or the supremest of all religions or whatever as long as they don't kill anyone. Thats freedom of expression!

Right, I said, fragmentation based on religion should be OK, when regional one is. I don't think the former is any more harmful to national consciousness than the latter. We accept regional diversity (by going as far as worshippin regional state-gods) and we must respect the diversity in religion.

In a state on lines of US, nobody would care about religion or some national consciousness of the kind that was dreamt in the freedom struggle. Let people think whatever they are. After 50 yrs of independence, we know that the age of any 'spiritual struggle' is gone; its one where consumer-market interaction is supposed to handle everything, right?

But when all this is "on" (and we submit to the ideas of individualism and consumerism) why take false pride in a culture that was considered worth only of being abandoned? (hypocrisy?) Now, if one does it for the sake of identity (as in Amer. politics), then why expect Muslims to submit to the same identity? They gotta have their own identity, right?

Coming to the depleting class of non-"English educated" Indians, not just Muslims, fundies in general haven't accepted individualism very well. Their 'national ideal' can't be individualism. If all of them could accept the american style individualism and pride in brown color as nationalism, there would have been no problems at all. They might, in the future; but before that happens, all the 'fundie problems' are there to stay.

In retrospect, I know that Gandhi didn't work for such an 'invented' identity (or pride in brown color); he worked against individualism, and India was more of an idea (spiritual) than some land bound by seas to most of the struggle era writers (Aurbindo ghosh, Tagore, many others). So, the new "national identity" with individualism at its heart, does demand some explanation to bharatiyas (if it involves pride in its 'great' people too)!

All in all, if you are saying that we can embrace Indian philosophy/wayoflife and individualism both at the same time, i wanna know how?
--
but what actually does islam says
every one has given his view about this problem but none has given it in the light islam.

every one thinks that what ever muslims do represents the teachings of islam which might not be the case every time.

just like when muslims were massacred in gujrat recently that didnt represent indian secularism. rather it was a voilation of indian secularism.

any way can a muslims be an american and a muslim at the same time?

can he be a indian and a muslim at the same time?

can he be a pakistani and a muslims at the same time?

the quran answers this question in one verse

49:13. O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).

so according to the quran the existence of different tribes, races, nations etc etc is the handi work of God.

and thats why according to islam a muslim can belong from Mars and still be a muslim.

the only thing he should keep in mind is that he should be a muslim martian

and not a martian muslim.

answering the question,indian muslims should be muslim indians rather than indian muslims.

Note: Please refer to quranic orders rather than general muslim population before making a point.

also i dont understand why an indian muslim should side with pakistani cricket team. this is stupidity and ignorance.

but this is nto taught by islam. i am sorry i cant explain this behaviour of theirs'
--
@Junaid
Aren't you the same guy whose posts are against consumerism most of the times? Here in India, I bet there are even more people thinking like you do. For one moment, consider yourself in India; you won't compromise your values for economy, would you? That explains what the case is for devout Muslims, in India. Its not 'wrong' for them to consider themselves Indian, but they just don't see themselves to be in the same boat.

Besides, not all Muslims think the same over the issue of region or Islam being first, either. I mean, in India, on one hand, you find muslims like Rahi Masoom Raza (who proclaimed that its OK to say that one is a Muslim Hindu, as Hindu is a word that Persians gave to all Indians. If Muslim arab is fine, so should be Muslim Hindu) and on the other you find, deobandi tabligh people (including leaders coming from Pakistan who lecture that considering nationalism before Islam is wrong). Of course, this varies across regions in India. In most places, where muslims live in harmony, they don't give a damn to tabligh, but at other places where the economic/cultural divide is wider and/or the terrorist operations are on, things might blow up (like they have many a times). check this out!
--
Clarification

No one needs to fight the case of urbanised Muslims. They allegiance is not in doubt. The urban class of India, having got secular education, gone to graduate/degree colleges, working in government offices/software companies faces no discrimination on basis of religion. Let there be no doubt about that! If a Muslim amongst this class is asked of his peoples' contribution to human race, he would pretty well, count off the historical achievements of Islam. This however, is just a case of identity, and doesn't involve taking Islam in a more serious sense.

The class which is addressed or understood to be "confused" in the discussion, is which takes Islam more seriously, and wants Islam to be playing a bigger role in their lives, probably the most important. This class, primarily educated in madrasas (and therefore hardly getting any jobs) maintains that Islamic lifestyle is the way to go in every sphere of life. The liberals go fine, but the fundies can't of course get sharia implemented, expect hijab to imposed/encouraged or whatever. Being poor, and neglected, they are pretty far from the receiving end of globalisation, and I really don't see any reason for them to celebrate if some dude is winning F1 championships. They are more likely to make Osama as their hero against the forces that caused their decay, or join SIMI and blow up places that some big-guy asked to.

The confusion prevails in the class 'cause of the big divide India lives within. This is an Indian newspaper:
The framers and compilers of the educational syllabi have prescribed course books in all states, particularly in UP, which are replete with matters pertaining to the faiths of the majority community, mythological and other stories of Hindu gods and goddesses.

If you look at Indonesia on the other hand, Ramayana still forms the favored theme of their theatre- Muslims do it too, and there is no conflict. Its all about the big divide, again!
--

Hurrying Midnight

2005-06-20T18:13:00.000-07:00

BY LARRY COLLINS AND DOMINIQUE LAPIERRE

In each passing century there are a few defining moments. One occurred just seconds after midnight on Aug. 14, 1947, when the Union Jack, emblazoned with the Star of India, began its final journey down the flagstaff of Viceroy's House in New Delhi. The last retreat of that banner proclaimed far more than the departure of the British Raj and the independence of 400 million people. It heralded the end of the Age of Imperialism and its precursor, the Age of Conquistadores, when the great explorers--from Columbus to Cortes, Magellan and Pizzaro--opened up the world by conquering boundless lands for God, gold and the monarchs of Spain, Portugal, France and England.

What a cast of characters stood center stage that historic night half a century ago. Admiral of the Fleet Lord Louis Mountbatten, Earl of Burma, sent out to Delhi to relinquish the finest component of an empire consolidated by his great-grandmother, Queen Victoria. Jawaharlal Nehru, a man of impeccable taste, breeding and fastidious intelligence, destined to become the first leader of the tumultuous Third World. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, cool, austere, polite to a fault, determined to force on the departing British the formation of a new Islamic nation (while savoring nightly a whiskey and soda forbidden by that faith).

And, towering above all was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the proponent of nonviolence who hastened the end of empire by the simple expedient of turning the other cheek. In an age when television did not exist, radios were rare and most of his countrymen were illiterate, the "Mahatma," or Great Soul, proved a master of communication. He had a genius for the simple gesture that spoke to his countrymen's souls.

Two new nations, India and Pakistan, were born in an hour of glory and rejoicing, which transformed all too quickly into a cauldron of bloodshed and horror as millions of Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims were uprooted from their homes. That appalling outburst of violence dwarfed anything we have witnessed recently in Bosnia or Rwanda. In three years of research for our book Freedom at Midnight, we interviewed the last viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, for 30 hours. He talked of 250,000 fatalities--an estimate undoubtedly tinged with wishful thinking. Most historians of the period place the figure at 500,000; some put it as high as 2 million.

Could it have been prevented? To find an answer to that question, we read every weekly report submitted to Mountbatten by the governors of India's provinces, officials who represented the best and wisest products of British rule in India, the mandarins of the Indian civil service. None foresaw a disaster even remotely close to the one that overwhelmed the subcontinent.

We talked at length to the Indian politicians who were close advisers to the leaders of the new nations. Without exception, they all urged Mountbatten to transfer power to their hands as swiftly as possible. These men had been agitating and preparing for the exercise of power for years. Nothing was going to delay them in getting that power. If violence were to follow the division of the subcontinent, well, they were confident they could handle it. What their innermost thoughts might have been cannot be said. But all of them, in their recorded conversations with Mountbatten, minimized the dangers that partition posed, and vastly overstated their abilities to deal with them. It was a classic--and tragic--example of political ambition taking precedence over reality. Only one person foresaw the dimension of the tragedy about to overwhelm the subcontinent. That was Gandhi. And in mid-summer 1947, no one was listening to the prophet of nonviolence.

There was one vital piece of information, however, that was denied to Mountbatten. We uncovered it during our research: the x-ray of Mohammed Ali Jinnah's lungs. This secret document revealed that the future leader of Pakistan was dying of tuberculosis. We met the doctors who had told Jinnah he had less than six months to live. Jinnah was the one unyielding obstacle in Mountbatten's desperate efforts to keep India united. Mountbatten acknowledged to us that had he known the Muslim leader was dying, he would have been strongly tempted to delay independence to await his death. Then, perhaps, an independent Pakistan would never have come into being.

Neither nation has successfully mastered many key problems: overpopulation, corruption, religious extremism. But for all their travails and conflicts, India and Pakistan can take pride in their accomplishments over the last half-century. "A moment comes," Nehru told his countrymen that midnight 50 years ago, "which comes but rarely in history ... when an age ends, when the soul of a nation long suppressed finds utterance." How clearly do we now see that an age was ending that night, an age that had begun one soft summer day in Cadiz in 1492 when Christopher Columbus sailed off on the endless green seas in search of India and found America instead.

Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre are the authors of Freedom at Midnight, the bestselling 1976 history of India and Pakistan's independence.
--

A response from a Pakistani:

This is how we in Pakistan view this:

As evident from Manuel's statement, Congress back then, and Indians even today, like Manuel, consider that "Jinnah would never have been able to pull off a new nation". They did not take Jinnah and the Muslim league seriously.

Thus Nehru wrote in a letter to Jinnah in 1938:

"... Obviously, the Muslim League is an important communal organization and we deal with it as such. But we have to deal with all organizations... Inevitably, the more important the organization, the more attention paid to it, but this importance does not come from outside recognition but from inherent strength."

To which Jinnah Replied:

"Your tone and language again display the same arrogance and militant spirit, as if the Congress is sovereign power... I may add that, in my opinion, ... unless the Congress recognizes the Muslim League on a footing of complete equality and is prepared as such to negotiate for a Hindu-Muslim settlement, we shall have to wait and depend upon our 'inherent strength' which will'determine the measure of importance or distinction' it possesses..."

Jinnah SHOULD have been able to pull of a new country by dialogue and constitution measures to which he always relied upon. But he was forced to make the importance of Musim League felt through direct action only to be take seriously and heard. We in Pakistan believe Congress itself responsible for cornering, and forcing Jinnah with no other option to show his strength. Had Congress recognized it, the riots could have been prevented.

Thus, from our view point, it was for Congress to prevent the riots, not Jinnah.

The whole Congress mindest which forced Jinnah for direct action is beautifully illustrated in the dialogue between Gandhi and Wavell regarding the Cabinet Mission plan:

Gandhi:
"We (the Cabinet Mission) must either adopt entirely the Congress view if we think it just, or Jinnah's point of view if we thought it juster; But there was no half-way house."

(Actually this half-way house is what could have maintained a united India,
with only some sort of constitutional measures to safe gaurd muslim interests)

Wavell said regarding this:
(Gandhi) seems quite unmoved at the prospect of civial war. I think he has adopted Patel's thesis that if we are firm, the Muslims will not fight".

The spirit of Jinnah's direct action, can be seen in his letter to Atlee, just before his call for it:

"I therefore trust that the British Government will still avoid compelling the Muslims to shed their blood, for, your surrender to the Congress at the sacrifice of the muslims can only result in that direction. If politics are going to be the deciding factor in total disregard of fair play and justice, we shall have no other course open to us except to forge our sanction to meet the situation which, in that case, is bound to arise. Its consequences I need not say will be most disastrous and a possible settlement will then become impossible".

The bottomline: Jinnah did not create Pakistan. Congress forced him to do so, in the hope that it will eat its cake and have it.

Pop-Tarts or Freedom?

2005-06-20T17:33:00.000-07:00

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, NYT

In the wake of U.S. aid to help Muslim and other victims of the recent tsunami, Colin Powell suggested that maybe, now that the Muslim world had seen "American generosity" and "American values in action," it wouldn't be so hostile to America.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a thank-you card. If the fact that American soldiers have risked their lives to save the Muslims of Bosnia, the Muslims of Kuwait, the Muslims of Somalia, the Muslims of Afghanistan and the Muslims of Iraq has earned the U.S. only the false accusation of being "anti-Muslim," trust me, U.S. troops passing out bottled water and Pop-Tarts in Indonesia are not going to erase that lie. It is not an exaggeration to say that, if you throw in the Oslo peace process, U.S. foreign policy for the last 15 years has been dominated by an effort to save Muslims - not from tsunamis, but from tyrannies, mostly their own theocratic or autocratic regimes.

It clearly has not made much of an impression. So you will pardon me if I say that I don't care whether the state media in Saudi Arabia - whose government gave far less to the Muslim tsunami victims ($30 million) than the amount spent by King Fahd's entourage on his last two vacations in Marbella (reportedly $100 million) - say nice things about us.

I believe the tensions between us and the Muslim world stem primarily from the conditions under which many Muslims live, not what we do. I believe free people, living under freely elected governments, with a free press and with economies and education systems that enable their young people to achieve their full potential, don't spend a lot of time thinking about who to hate, who to blame, and who to lash out at.

Free countries don't have leaders who use their media and state-owned "intellectuals" to deflect all of their people's anger away from them and onto America.

Ah, you say, but the Europeans live in free-market democracies and they have become very anti-American. Yes, some of them. But for Europeans, anti-Americanism is a hobby. For too many in the Muslim world it has become a career.

I am sure that young Taiwanese, young Koreans, young Japanese, young Poles and young Indians have their views on America, but they are not an obsession. They want our jobs, not our lives. They live in societies that empower their young people to realize their full potential and to express any opinion - pro-American, anti-American or neutral.

So I don't want young Muslims to like us. I want them to like and respect themselves, their own countries and their own governments. I want them to have the same luxury to ignore America as young Taiwanese have - because they are too busy focusing on improving their own lives and governance, running for office, studying anything they want or finding good jobs in their own countries.

The Bush team is certainly not fostering all this when it mismanages a war it launched to liberate the people of Iraq. Its performance has been pathetic, and I understand anyone on the right or the left who wants to wash his hands of the whole thing.

Speaking personally, though, I am still hoping that these Iraqi elections come off - out of respect for the Iraqis who have been ready to risk their lives for a chance to vote, out of contempt for the insurgents who want to prevent that and out of a deep conviction that something very important is at stake.

No, these elections won't change Iraq or the region overnight, and Thomas Jefferson is not on the ballot. But they will at least kick off what the Iraq expert Yitzhak Nakash calls "a real, Iraqi political process run by and for Iraqis."

That Iraqi political process "has to begin now to enable the U.S. to get out sooner rather than later," added Mr. Nakash, a Brandeis professor and currently a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center. "The U.S. must go ahead with the elections in Iraq, accept the likelihood that Shiites and Kurds will do well, and leave the door open to Sunnis to join as partners in writing the Iraqi constitution. We want a system there that answers to the aspirations of Iraqis, not Americans. That is the key to a legitimate Iraqi government."

Before the war, I said of Iraq, "We break it, we own it." Today, my motto is, "If they own it, they'll fix it." America's standing in the Muslim world will improve, not when we get a better message, but when they have more control. People with the responsibility and opportunity to run their own lives focus on their own lives - not on us. More of that would be a very good thing.

The Battle for Enlightenment

2005-06-19T05:29:00.000-07:00

This I saw in an online forum. Some pretty good points were raised, considering the brouhaha that erupts everytime a religious figure or person is denigrated. Is it worth it? Thats the question.

Salman Rushdie: Do we have to fight the battle for the Enlightenment all over again?

Democracy is not a tea party. In the end, a fundamental decision has to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not?

--
This makes great sense to me:

The moment you say that any idea system is sacred, whether it's a belief system or a secular ideology, the moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.

--
to your point about protesting the use of Sacred Images on bikinis etc:

1. Firstly Hinduism and many Eastern religions are perceived as some sort of a joke or spoof by the popular mind here in Europe.

2. Now therefore, they think they can steal anything from us, without asking any questions, no compunctions and then use it as they want.

3. Its this 'we give a damn to you' attitude that upsets Hindus and others here. there have been worst things than bikinis: Sacred images on footwear, on toilet seats, on none-wiping tissues. all these are extrapolations of that same attitude.

4. 'we are ignorant so we do this' cannot be an excuse. I have met Christiana Cavalli daughter of Roberto Cavalli (who produced the Godesses on Bikinis range) and she herself agreed that if such a thing was done to images of Madonna she would be horrified. then why this insensitivity to our culture alone? afterall they dont dare use Islamic sacred imagery on footwear or toiletseats?

5. finally, all this, Hindus fear, will lead in one direction: physical abuse. beacuse as a culture if you are not respected, you are treated as some caricature, and as amusing specimens who are dumb enough to worship '12 handed Gods and naked images and cows and monkeys' rather than decent and intelligent human beings, the next thing is to exploit you. thats not far, its already happening. and it has once happened in the Europe of past: before the final assault on Jews, they too were subjected to similar treatment. now thats why Hindu here are even more wary.

OK the issue of 'freedom of expression' (f o e) is there. But the question is can you allow it to be taken to its extremes?

and in this pervasive desrire to be seen as 'progressive', people are willing to accept any sort of insulting work on Eastern cultures under the banner of 'f o e'.

I mean we got to be objective. not everything under the sun is passe.
--

But the question is can you allow it to be taken to its extremes?

Absolutely not. People in a democratic society need to take an implicit responsibility of not offending the sensibilities of another section of the society - especially minorities.

Now if this "incitment to religious hatred" law is enforced, (for instance) Cavalli will take notice of how hindus would perhaps react if he were to make the SHiva underwears, because a strong legal implication is involved. Maybe he'll take the opinion of hindu friends, or a hindu council before substantiating his expression.

Essentially, this law is only reminding you to be responsible for what you are doing, and think twice.

As Prabhu said - there is no place for 'we are ignorant'. If you really want to go ahead and express yourself in an extreme way, you have to understand that you need a better reason than 'we are ignorant' to defend yourself, if the need arises.

Rushdie says: The moment you say that any idea system is sacred, whether it's a belief system or a secular ideology, the moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.

But then, the key to the legal pertinence of this act totally depends on how far it is taken with respect to these 4 terms - criticism, satire, derision, contempt.

Criticism and satire should stay outside the purview of this law. Hatred incitement based on criticism or satire shows inflexibility on the part of those poeple who incite the trouble. The 'we are ignorant' theory too is not an issue with criticism or satire, since in this case, there could be no criticism if there was ignorance.

But if its derision or contempt, (like in the case of the underwear) the law should be invoked. So that it acts as a deterrent (as opposed to a complete immunity) against derision and contempt in a way that it makes you think twice before you undertake such an expression.

Lastly, I dont see how democracy is disturbed with this law - the law is not banning anything - it only proposes to take action after a particular event. It only creates a deterrent on the minds of the people, in a constructive way.

The Muslim identity

2005-06-19T05:13:00.000-07:00

One thing I have always felt is, the muslim world has lost all identities except Islam. Most of the non-muslim countries can identify themselves with more than just one thing. Be it high tech business, strong economy, good work ethos etc etc. The only identity the muslim world has been left with is their religion, islam. By the muslim world, i mean the common man there. So not following islam, or the tenets as the local maulvi preaches them, is tantamount to an identity-crisis. where do they go from there?

I guess that is why islam has failed to progress beyond whats in the holy-book. See, all religions do have some holy book. All holy books will have some tenets which dont apply in today's world. Other religions have moved on, paying scant respect for those tenets. Because the people following those religions have an identity other than their religion. I mean hell, 100 yrs back, hindu's would burn the widow in the name of god, and 500 yrs ago the christians would burn ugly women, saying they were witches. These religions have moved on as the practitioners have moved on.

The muslim world on the other hand has regressed (still is), and the common man just hasnt moved on. This entrenchment in beliefs gives rise to the fanatical image. This prompts paranoid countries like France to stifle islamic religious symbols(whatever the justification may be). This in turn makes the islamists insecure abt their strongest identity and more regression happens due to antagonism towards whats seen as a non-islamic force. Its an evil cycle.

Whats the way out? If i knew that, someone wud have come up with it much before. One thing is certain though, the change for the better has to come from within. Sati didnt stop because the british came down heavily on the practioners. It was a hindu who stood up and took on the people who mattered. I have no idea how witch hunting came to a stop, but am certain it was not because a jew or muslim expressed shock and anger at the inhuman practise.

Some responses:

You are so right when you say that Muslim societies over the past two centuries have regressed into the depths of despondency, akin in some cases, to the despondency or pre-Islamic Arabia. The Muslim world by and large is going through an identity crisis and I dont think its because they believe in one book or one strictly defined set of dogmas. Its primarily related to the sociological and economic degradation that these societies have gone through. The only refuge in most cases has been to turn back to religion and hope to re-establish 'ideal society' of the time of the Prophet and the four Caliphs. The very reactionary nature of this response forced many intellectual to further a very limited and strictly defined version of Islam. And in times of rising American imperialism across the Muslim world, revivalist Muslim organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt made this reactionary Islamic ideology, the opium of the uneducated Muslim masses. I dont see it as an inherent failure of Islam, but rather the failure of the Muslim societies to regenerate Muslim thought with the changing world context.

The need of the hour for the Muslim world is to engage in some serious soul-searching and figure out where they stand in the wider world order. But given the permeance of Islam across national and political boundaries today we just cant leave it at that- we also need to engage in an inter-faith dialogue, that would help clarify many misconceptions that we hold regarding each other.

--
Me: Maybe I worded my thoughts a little incorrectly. I didnt attribute the regression to a failure of Islam, but exactly the same factor as you've mentioned, failure to move on with the times(but then, religion is what is practiced, what do you think of that?). The loss of identity too (imo) is not because Islam follows one book, but loss of other identities have left this as the only single identity to protect(as you pointed out, due to socio-economic factors).

peace.

Untouchability

2005-06-18T01:41:00.000-07:00

A much maligned issue. Here's an attempt to understand the origin from the scriptures to the practice of untouchability.

Origins, the varnas:

The vedas describes the four varnas: the brahmin, the kshatriya, the vaishya and the shudra. Each varna was a class and a person's classification depended on the job he took up, and not the other way round. This was a division of labor, much like the modern world's division of white collar jobs & blue collar jobs. It is important to understand why categories were made in the first place. Earliest societies used to place greater importance on social responsibility, as opposed to individualism. Thus they felt it easier to categorise the various functions of the society, viz scriptures for the Brahmins, protection of dharma for Kshatriyas, business and accounting for Vaishyas and rest of the functions like cleaning streets, metal workers, cobblers, barbers, tanners, farmers, craftsmen were shudras, basically the blue collar jobs. There was no concept of higher & lower varnas and thus no hierarchy. Each varna was important, though the brahmin varna was the most respected. They were seen as keepers of knowledge, the upholders of dharma or the highest ideals almost aking to life of an ascetic. Note that the offspring of a shudra could take up the priestly profession of a brahmin. To further put the alleged hierarchy into perspective, the Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras were the earning members of the society, while the Brahmins were not. The Brahmins were depended on all the other three classes for donations and thus their sustanence. This clearly shows the idea of associating a hierarchy with the Varna system is junk. In fact, in todays world, the Brahmin would be the weakest varna considering that it is material wealth that determines one status in society and spirituality & philosophy is damned.

How the mighty fall:

I dont think the varna system regressed into a caste-based society over a short period of time, instead it happened over a long period of time and was exacerbated by a number of external factors. Neither did this system necessarily lead to ummigitated & all-pervasive oppression, as painted by the Indian intellegentsia. More on that later. First off, I think there was an inherent flaw in the varna system. Offspring generally tend to follow in their father's footsteps and thus there is a natural predeliction for varna to evolve into a jaati(caste-ist) system. Then follows the usual story of how Brahminism once it became a jaati(caste), came to be zealously guarded by brahmins. Mobility within the jaati was restricted with this objective in mind. If a human is forced to take up cobblery because his father is a cobbler, it is a suppression of the individual will. That said, there is not much evidence that brahmanism became institutionalised. Even today in the villages of India, the brahmin pujari of a village is as poor as perhaps poorer than the vashya farmer, depending on the region. It was not as if complete caste immobility was imposed. I know, in Bengal, the kayastha(a fifth caste, meant for record keeping) merged into the vaishya and the kshatriya. I'm kinda sure that similar merging etc of castes happened elsewhere. If anyone suggests that caste mobility was restricted into the brahmin caste, I'd agree with him as the most likely case and not gospel truth at least initially. I guess even given this not so bad picture, things werent good enough as evident from the rise of Buddhism. Though that is put into the perspective as non-kshatriyas became kings and so did mlechchas(outsiders, eg Kushanas).

To understand how the system degraded we need to analyse the manusmriti, the code book which laid down the rules of caste. A quick scan of the manusmriti reveals the following verses:

91. One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Sudra, to serve meekly even these (other) three castes.

97. Of Brahmanas, those learned (in the Veda); of the learned, those who recognize (the necessity and the manner of performing the prescribed duties); of those who possess this knowledge, those who perform them; of the performers, those who know the Brahman.

98. The very birth of a Brahmana is an eternal incarnation of the sacred law; for he is born to (fulfill) the sacred law, and becomes one with Brahman.

99. A Brahmana, coming into existence, is born as the highest on earth, the lord of all created beings, for the protection of the treasury of the law.

Thus it very clearly laid down the concept of the brahmin as a superior being than the shudra. Note that this is a departure from the earlier notion of respect for knowledge to a respect by birth alone. However, the manusmriti also lays down rules, that prevent the brahmin from becoming all powerful and lays down rules of fair treatment of shudras. The shudras were also exempt from paying taxes.

155. The seniority of Brahmanas is from (sacred) knowledge, that of Kshatriyas from valour, that of Vaisyas from wealth in grain (and other goods), but that of Sudras alone from age.

161. Let him(brahmin) not, even though in pain, (speak words) cutting (others) to the quick; let him not injure others in thought or deed; let him not utter speeches which make (others) afraid of him, since that will prevent him from gaining heaven.

162. A Brahmana should always fear homage as if it were poison; and constantly desire (to suffer) scorn as (he would long for) nectar.

120. (Viz.) from Vaisyas one-eighth as the tax on grain, one-twentieth (on the profits on gold and cattle), which amount at least to one Karshapana; Sudras, artisans, and mechanics (shall) benefit (the king) by (doing) work (for him).

122. But let a (Sudra) serve Brahmanas, either for the sake of heaven, or with a view to both (this life and the next); for he who is called the servant of a Brahmana thereby gains all his ends.

123. The service of Brahmanas alone is declared (to be) an excellent occupation for a Sudra; for whatever else besides this he may perform will bear him no fruit.

124. They must allot to him out of their own family (property) a suitable maintenance, after considering his ability, his industry, and the number of those whom he is bound to support.

125. The remnants of their food must be given to him, as well as their old clothes, the refuse of their grain, and their old household furniture.

The manusmriti has 12 chapters and contain on an avg 100-120 verses in each chapter. The first chapter is an introduction to Manu, the wise sage and the creation of man. I was surprised to see stuff like "give your seat to the elderly" and common hindu tradition of sprinkling a little water on the head after eating, codified in there. Some commentators point of that the manusmriti is applicable to Satyuga and thus inapplicable in the Kalyuga, but as we see some of the codes have become part of tradition. This includes the the former verses. The manusmriti also dictates how a brahmin will cease to be one if he drinks water from a shudra. The manusmriti is said to have been written around 200 AD. It was not written by Manu, but by some brahmin scholars. Some people say that it was these laws which led to the birth of Buddhism. That is an incorrect observation as Buddha preached buddhism around 550 BC!

How much oppression did the "red" verses lead to, given the "blue" verses? I dont know for sure. I do have a theory though. The kshatriyas were supposed to be learned in the dharma shashtras(of which the smriti is part of) so ideally the kings(or at least the just ones) shoud have ensured the "blue" verses were upheld(this is codified in the manusmriti too). However, I believe that the kings would tend to hand this job over to his advisers(who would most probably be the royal priest, a brahmin). Thus this advisor would actually determine the fairplay in the matter. In this regard, the saving grace would be the diversity of the hindu religion and absence of central authority like the church. So, it was more or less dependent on each brahmin to uphold the "blue" verses. Assuming all brahmins to pay scant regard to them is a preposterous idea. However, some/most(no idea) of them did exploit the situation to some extent. Thus the rise of untouchability began with the manusmriti becoming part of tradition.

Trivia:

The manusmriti was not the last of the smritis that codified rules of hindu society. There was a later Yajnavalkya smriti in around 350 A.D, Parasa smriti in 1300 AD(this is supposed to be the smriti that we should follow now as it is meant for kalyug) and dhayabag in 1500 AD. The yajnavalkya smriti codes are the inspiration behind some of the hindu laws in the Indian constitution. These latter smritis dont cover society as pervasively as the manusmriti but only speak of certain aspects of it. There are a total of 36 known dharma shashtras as they are called. Its instructive to keep this trivia in mind when we analyse the scope and extent of the oppression.

The problem with tradition & death of the Vedas:

So we see that the manusmriti became part of tradition. The problem with this, is later generations would be lazy to check up the facts in Vedas or even the smritis. This is because they would say "this is how it has been for ages". With the passage of time, this `ages' would increase and the tradition would entrench itself further on the psyche of generations to follow. A rather unfortunate event was that the Puranas became better known than the vedas & the upanishads, although the latter was the authority. This is clearly seen in the popularity the Gods in Puranas enjoy. Admittedly the latter Gods were much more glamourous than the cut & dried Gods of the vedas and naturally held the people's sway. ;-) The fact that the vedas and upanishads only commented on creation, philosophy and rituals while leaving out social rules, led to the the dharma shashtras being the only source of such rules. So, ancient law keepers while needing laws to settle disputes would refer to them. Which dharma-shashtra they picked depended on the region and the intentions of the law keepers. This made the dharma-shashtras more pervasive. It is unfortunate that the death of the vedas led to some codes/laws that went against vedic principles and nothing was done about it. The absence of a central body/authority to uphold the vedas was one reason that the smritis went unchallenged. One of the few instances when the diversity of hinduism goes against it.

The oppression: how pervasive was it?

It is well known that hindu society has no unity of thought as far as religious practices are concerned. Every one is free to believe and practice what they see fit of the various Gods & the various social contracts given in the smritis. Even today people talk of their own community and practices of their community rather practices in hinduism. The `biradari' concept is very much there. This disunity of thought has been present since times immemorial. Thus what rules were followed and what wasnt was a more a community thing. So, its incorrect to say that all communities observed a strict segragationist attitude towards the shudras. For example a brahmin community down south(namboodri, afaik) is said to have intricate rules on how much distance to maintain from a shudra depending on the shudra sub-caste. Now this sort of thing is not present in better known religious texts or in other communities. It may well be possible that this is mentioned in some lesser known smritis or even possible that they devised one of their own.

Then again it was not as if the entire shudra caste was treated with equal disdain. The shudra caste was divided into numerous sub-castes. An unexhaustive list would be the nai(barber), darzi(tailor), mali(gardner), kumhars(clay potters), lohar(iron-workers), sonar(gold-workers). Its impossible to segregate these people as they form the crux of the society. I mean how can a brahmin have his head tonsured without letting the barber touch him? Or have clothes made and repaired without the tailor touching the clothes? The sub-castes of the shudras themselves had an heirarchy and they used to follow it. For example the chamars(leather workers) and dhobis, the dhobhis were `higher' and wouldnt interact with a chamar. Thus it was the lowest of the shudras who were the oppressed ones. Some of the sub-castes like chamars, kori & tarmali to name a few fell in this oppressed categories. Another the thing about sub-castes was region dependent. I know a bit of casteism in UP `cause I've interacted more with people from UP. Some place else, like down south or Bengal, there could be even more or lesser number of sub-castes.

This is the reason why only some sub-castes are identified and bracketed into the SC/ST category by the Indian constitution. This also explains why a relatively low figure of 160 million is quoted while talking about dalits today, when the total population is 1 billion(makes the dalits 1.6%). If we take the entire shudra block to be oppressed the percentage should have been much higher considering that 80% of India is rural and with four primary castes, the shudras should at least be 25% of the population.

Thus we see that the much touted oppression varied greatly across different communities and various regions. It was never and still isnt a part of hindu society across India.

Another criticism I have come across is all men were not treated equal, no matter how much one rules out widespread oppression. This is true and is really despicable. I just dont want to defend this because it is so wrong, but yet, to prevent unmigitated criticism, I'd like to point out the equality of man has been an elusive concept independent of religion(or the absence of it) and region.

Exacerbating factors:

The muslim conquest and then the british conquest led to faster ossification of the caste rules. In the sultanates and mughal empires, most of the nobles were muslims. Under "threat" from rise of a new and foreign religion, hindu society closed itself. This is a kinda natural response of all ideologies. With the traditional kshatriyas no longer being the protectors of dharma and the hindu society, all the responsibility fell on the brahminical class. They just found it easier to make caste distinctions so pervasive that the people regarded it as part of religion and thought twice about converting because of the divisions. Kinda unintuitive, but the only the thing to do, since hinduism lacked a central authority(see death of the vedas). A more proactive movement was launched in the 15th or 16th century, called the Bhakti movement which aimed to remove the caste distinctions among people following one god with all devotion, but it ended up diving hindu society along hari-bhakta and shiv-bhakta and what not(it did remove casteism to some extent though)! Thankfully, the muslim nobles let the communities within the hindu fold be as they were and attempted no unification of all of `em under one common law.

The british, when they became the law-enforcers were befuddled with the multitude of dharma-shashtras. They picked up the manusmriti as the most comprehensive of law books and attempted to administer justice based on the codes in it. Thus manu and hinduism came to be associated together. This was a kinda unfortunate event `coz not all communities used to follow the codes of manu anyway. I guess this led more to the widespread misconception that a casteist society was a product of hindu religion. An interesting article on this here.

The way out:

With independence, the new smriti for hindus is the Indian constitution. Since hinduism lacks a central authority, the activities of individuals (even luminaries like Vivekananda, Gandhi, Dayananda) will have limited effect. Thus a new smriti needs to be incorporated into the hindu laws of the Indian constitution. Hindus need to go back to the vedas and purge useless concepts like castes. The govt needs to market the new smriti actively. If a social practise has become pervasive because it is apparently sanctified by the religion, the way to fight it is, show that it is an incorrect view. Raja Ram Mohan Roy showed the authority of the RgVeda and the verse that says "Its a sin to end one's life before one's life finishes" to root out Sati. Unfortunately, even the rumblings of such a move are absent in the Indian political scene. And that, is another completely different rant. :-)

Jinnah & the Partition

2005-06-17T03:46:00.000-07:00

Whats the brouhaha about anyway? India is locked into an eternal propaganda to brand Jinnah as the villain of the piece. BS. To the `secular' politicians, anyone who poses questions against the Gandhi 's or Nehru's is rtadhimmi ;-). Anyone who reads up the 90 year old history from 1857 to 1947 will have a very different idea than whats taught in Indian history. This is part of the Congress agenda to either malign or sideline all leaders who thought differently. Never you will find an objective analysis which calls a spade a spade and lays the blame where's its due, on some individual, a group or even an ideology. This is exactly in line with the sidelining of leaders like NC Bose for one, and other important personalities like Bharati, who's poems `are full of power' according to a Tamil friend of mine. This in inverse proportional importance given to Gandhi & Nehru. Gandhi I can understand, and the more I follow his work, his take on spirituality, my respect for the man grows as far as one of greatest spiritual leaders of modern India. I cant however digest the execessive respect for Nehru, since the only barometer of judging his actions seem to be his undertakings as a political leader. I'm afraid an analysis of Jinnah vs Nehru, leaves Nehru trailing quite far behind.

Anyway, lets trudge back to the sepoy mutiny as the British called it, or the first war of independence as Indians like to call it in 1857. Muslim noblemen and hindu princes struck a long needed alliance and fought the British helped by rebels from the sepoy regiments. It was too little and too late. It was crushed brutally. The British realised that hindu-muslim unity must be avoided at all costs. They also realised that it would not be possible to rule with force but instead create a brown sahib class that would work for the British govt. For various reasons hindus joined the call, while muslims rejected it. I think the primary reason was that the muslims(at least the nobles) having ruled India for around 600 years were extremely bitter with the British taking power away from them, while hindu nobles & aristocrats simply continued their servile ways. First to hindu kings, then to the muslim kings and finally the British. Thus was sown the seed for the hindu-muslim divide. Modern education led to the rise of middle class hindus while this section in muslims was absent. Thus while hindus rose against the their colonial masters they called in Indian nationalism, a term they were gonna borrow from their english education. However muslims could not identify with this nationalism as there were no takers for modern education. M. Iqbal in his writings clearly shows his disdain for the British education. Not that he was incorrect. He just realised the serious underpinnings of destroying a native culture and replacing it with an alien cuture, much like Shri Aurobindo realised. The intellectual gap between hindus in this reagard made a nationalist like M.Iqbal turn into a strong proponent of muslim nationalism seperate from Indian nationalism. There were some people like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan who disagreed. I guess Iqbal was not comfortable with hindus spouting talk-english, walk-english & sleep-english, and found himself disagreeing with the hindu intellectuals. Thus the genesis of Pakistan's idea came from Iqbal. I wonder why Jinnah is called the Q.A of Pakistan, when to me, its Iqbal who is so. Jinnah was no devout muslim, he was good diplomat & politician, and for the early part of his political career he tried to be a secular politician interested in Indian nationalism. Differences with Gandhi & Nehru made him go the Iqbal route. The final nail in the coffin was the rejection of Cabinet plan by Nehru.

So if we look at the partition and M.Jinnah, religion had very little to do with it as much as his political ideologies, ambition & perhaps fear that muslims would be oppressed under a hindu majority rule. This is highlighted by M.Jinnah's oft quoted speech where he envisions Pakistan as a secular state. M.Jinnah transformation from secular-to communal- and back to secular just shows that he used communal politics for a certain end, or else he would have handed Pakistan to the maulvis straight up! :-p This is why I feel M.Jinnah, Advani & the RSS are all birds of the same flock. If you wanna flame me on this, gimme reasons n not diatribe! ;-)

This is precisely why I think its far more important to analyse(from an Indian pt of view) M.Iqbal's transformation from an Indian nationalist to a muslim nationalist, because the M.Iqbal truly believed that muslims and hindus could not stay together. He didnt have any political ambitions or narrow goals to achieve. I think without much thought, one can directly attribute this to ecnonomic & social disparties. Perhaps I'll look into it another post.

Words of wisdom

2005-06-17T03:21:00.000-07:00

Got this from a thread.

Manusmriti was a law collection of Hinduism applicable to Satya yuga. After that came Treta Yuga in which Gautama smriti was applicable. Then came Dwapara Yuga in which Shanka smriti was applicable and for Kaliyuga, Parasara Smriti is to be followed by Hindus. So, Manu Smriti is now, irrelevant. Its another concept like muslims considering Bible/Gospel to be old and irrelevant altho they accept that Issah or Jesus is one of the prophets.

Gotta check up on the Gautama, Shanka and Parasara smritis.

The 1000 yr India's contribution question revisited

2005-06-17T00:45:00.000-07:00

Oh damn... I think I mistook the question to be Indian inventions from 1000 AD to before & during Colonial era. Guess mera time bura chal raha tha ;-). The question also includes the post-colonial era.

I guess we need to look at how science manifests itself in the human civilization. We find that when pick any single area of study, the initial advancements are revolutionary and come by fairly quickly. It then reaches a general level of usefulness such that it becomes a part of civilization. Later smaller improvements are made and these too find their way into the civilization, but are not considered as radical as the first model, though that might be a misplaced notion. Consider the invention of the TV. Scientists frobbed around with cathode ray tubes for long enough and Baird came up with the TV. Now theTV he invented & the coolest HDTV's today perhaps have no similarity other than purpose, yet, it aint common knowledge who was behind the concept of HDTV. So the idea is the world remembers the most radical inventions but forgets the most radical improvements to them.

Thus the inventions of the world kinda follow from previous inventions which have been borrowed from elsewhere. I guess we can say that the truly revolutionary ideas must have been making the earliest tools, domestication of animals, invention of the wheel and the `discovery' (accident?) of lighting fire. Everything else kinda followed from these. Pure sciences evolved once mankind was done with settling at one place. Philosophy followed in parallel or maybe predated even science. Thus the most radical inventions came about in burts so to speak and forgotten innovations came about gradually. Do these later innovations count as inventions, or will the west see it as such? Then we can safely say that the geometry involved in spires and domes definitely improved even in India and were later imported to the West. The idea of astronomy also progressed, the unfortunate development being it getting classified into astrology and irrational science. Medical science improved with refining methods of making medicines from herbs. Trading systems improved as different cultures interacted. If we look at the post-renaissance Europe the radical inventions and discoveries wouldnt be there if the numeral system was not there or indeed the if paper and gunpowder not there, both of which are Chinese inventions. The only burst that happened almost solely in Europe was at the time of the World Wars. Driven out of necessity, the newest sciences have evolved from that period. That was the west's time to contribute to civilization and they did so remarkably. Thus science and systems have evolved out of interaction, not in isolation and that is the spirit of science. Its like a spiral. So I think its not instructive to look at inventions in the way the question has been framed. Then again science is all about standing on the shoulders of giants so as to see further, as Newton said. To see the contributions of India or any country or group or even individual, to science we need to look at the contributions as is, whithout consideration of influences. Then there are numerous examples.

Another question is, what of inventions & discoveries that are considered age-old truths in India, but are still being `discovered' in the west? I mean, lets look at neem. For thousands of years Indians have used this marvelous plant, the Azadirachta indica, as a disinfectant, in brushing, in washing clothes of a diseased person etc. Its common lore. Do we get the credit for it? Or will it be only recognised when a western country tries to patent neem? Thus neem becomes a western discovery? What of haldi? Textmati & Basmati? There must be thousands of herbs in Ayurveda. Is their presence, identification and medicinal powers noted down somewhere other than the books of the occult? ;-) Or will the west `discover' them too?

More thoughts on the apology angle

2005-06-16T20:10:00.000-07:00

Well actually this line of thinking usually makes a `Ram temple supporter' think something like this:"(a)muslims butchered hindus in the islamic state of medieval india. (b)hindus forgave the muslims for the atrocities and didnt exact revenge after the islamic state fell. (c) hindus gave part of their land for a song. (d) so what is wrong if we are asking back for three places of our places of worship among the thousands that were destroyed.

As i explained before following (b) from (a) is incorrect, as the perpetrator of that violence was the invaders/state, while the `forgiven' subject of (b) were their neighbors who before the communal fire erupted, never had harmed hindus, but continued their `hindu way of life' (which I think of assimilation of a religion into a culture). similarly to use (b) and (c) to ask Indian muslims for (d) is erroneous because the Indian muslim never needed (b)[forgiveness] and (c) was never his demand. In fact by staying back he shared the faith that TNT was not true. By (b) and (c), the temple supporter exposes his mentality of viewing the Indian muslim as an outsider.

So you see (d) is correct (asking for three temples in ayodhya, kashi and mathura, places of worship important to hindus). It is indeed the way one ask's and reasons he gives forth that are important. We call the temple breakers brutes and barbarians and worst form of humanity. Where does the hindu mosque breaker stand in this regard? Not one single person related to the destruction of the mosque has been prosecuted. The sri krishna commission squarely blamed bal thackeray(who btw does the entire incorrect analysis of a,b,c,d mentioned above) for his role in the bombay riots that followed, but to date no further enquiry or chargesheet was made.

The report was brushed under the carpet. I really wonder if the hindu nationalists instead of breaking the mosque, followed the path of dharma they claim to uphold(ref my first set of posts), what the course of the next decade would be. Nut no, some cheap publicity had to be gained. Some cheap way to resurrect themselves into the hindu voters mind was needed. This was as despicable as the congress deification of gandhi to garner votes. This distorted line of thinking is as bad as the lack of thinking pseudos would have in the entire populace. Perhaps worse. Distorted thinking will lead to more communal chaos than lack of thinking.

In the end, unrighteous actions draw crooks, while righteous actions draw noble men. By deviating from the path of dharma they are drawing more crooks(the likes of togadia). In fact this is true of the entire political spectrum.

Indian muslim? Prove you are Indian!

2005-06-16T19:58:00.000-07:00

Let us see the whole issue of institutional persecution of hindus wrto the persecution of jews.

The important difference between the the latter case is that the persecution & subsequent apology came from external entities.

In our case, the persecutors came as invaders but their legacy, the muslims masses, are one of us. If hindus had formed a rebellion and overthrown mughal rule, they could have exacted an apology from them for the atrocities. The birth of nationalism saw hindus and some proportion of the muslim masses unite against the british. Thus during the independence struggle the enemy changed.

Post independence hindus were confused. Their previous cause of oppression was gone, obliterated in the sands of time. The legacy of that oppression was their muslim neighbours. People who had not harmed them for centuries. Futher nationalism demanded they all communities stick togther and work for the common ideal of India.

So now who do we condemn and ask for an apology from? The current Indian muslim? Thats preposterous. I refuse to question the patriotism of muslims of my age, rare cases of "anti-india" chants from morons notwithstanding.

I find this right-wing stance of wanting the muslims to be humble etc and beg the hindus for approval a manifestation of still viewing Indian muslims as invaders.

This is a silent approval for the TNT. That muslims are a separate people.

Further its not as if hindus can claim some high moral ground as far as reverse persecution goes. Agreed that the muslim persecution is politically motivated, and is a microscopic entity as far as medieval oppression of hindus is concerned, but the big difference is the former happened in a `secular' democratic state while the latter an islamic autocratic state. Have you heard of hashimpura killings during riots in meerut? The sikh riots? Gujarat? Where is the hindu apology? Then again which hindu shud apologize? Surely I didnt pick up a sword and cut down a muslim. Why shud i take the burden for some sorry excuse for a human who coincidentally happens to be a hindu?

The `core concern' is correct. Obfuscation of history has(or may have taken) taken place. Saffron, the color of renunciation is denigrated as petty communal politics, but the concerns themselves are no justification for violence!

So generation after generation will grow up brainwashed by the leftist agenda. The hindu right wing will come with its stunted ideas on breaking mosques and what not, and will be roundly rejected. I hardly need to point out that hindu nationalism is not a product of the last decade. It's been there since the turn of the 20th century. In the end, truth suffers. Communal divide widens.

Some responses & then mine

2005-06-16T19:50:00.000-07:00

Jnaneshvar writes:

Whom the four vedas try to understand, the reason for the creation of the six shatras,
the eighteen puranas, they sing hari's praises.

this was about a thousand years ago.

from then till now, hinduism has had a paradigm shift from yogayaaga to bhakti. and bhakti as such is essential pure and not the domain of a religion.

i mean, how do you differentiate between the bhakti of a christian towards jesus, of a muslim towards allah and of a hindu towards hari?

you can't.

so, a hindu hari bhakta has the same potential to becoming a zealot as a muslim or a christian.

the idea that hinduism is inherently secular takes root from the upanishads, which are hardly even known today. the general hindu agreement is that without the devotion, the upanishadic learning is but wasted.

therefore, religion in it's essence is the root cause of all the suffering. all the buddha did was got rid of the hari.

While I agree that bhakti movement was geared more towards monotheistic belief(and thus a potential candidate for too much zeal!), an important distinction was that it recognized the concept of ishta-deva. Somewhere along the line, this was forgotten. Rather, has been forgotten. Thus the link to the upanishads was severed. Bhakti by itself has all the leanings to be tolerant of other faiths.(i find the term secular a misnomer in this regard).

As vivekananda said "If a person wants to drink milk, he uses a cup as he cannot drink it directly. Idols are nothing but symbols through which divinity can be comprehended. It helps undeveloped minds to grasp high spiritual truths."

Imho religious intolerance is like some forms of hydra. It breeds itself.
--

Its true that the concept of secularism as applied in Indian context is flawed. For take for example the word tolerance, which is another central idea of secularism.

I feel the very use of the word 'tolerance' is biased. It assumes that ther other person is wrong and still he is being 'tolerated'. To quote Swami Vivekananda "Our watchword, then, will be acceptance, and not exclusion. Not only toleration, for so-called toleration is often blasphemy, and I do not believe in it. I believe in acceptance. Why should I tolerate? Toleration means that I think that you are wrong and I am just allowing you to live. Is it not a blasphemy to think that you and I are allowing others to live? I accept all religions that were in the past, and worship with them all; I worship God with every one of them, in whatever form they worship Him."

Yea, good point. `Tolerance' is a wrong word here. Acceptance is the correct word.

Hinduism vs Secularism

2005-06-16T19:21:00.001-07:00

Before you read any further I'd like you to forget the prejudices(correct or otherwise) against the organizations such as the RSS, VHP, BJP and the rest of the Sangh Parivar. I would like you to forget Gujarat, forget the partition, the demand for Pakistan and the two-nation theory. Finally I would like ask you to forget India, and concentrate on `Bharatvarsha'.

Bharatvarsha has been the progenitor of arguably the oldest sacred texts, the oldest philosophy and the oldest civilization. There is no doubt amongst both the western scholars and eastern intellectuals that this ancient philosophy and civilization was among the finest of its time. Apart from religion art, sciences and literature flourished. But we shall only view the religion part of it here.

Bharatvarsha is credited as the cradle of two of the world's biggest religions: hinduism and buddhism. Along with this developed the sect of jainism. Within hinduism itself there exist numerous schools of thought. Later period is credited with the assimilation of islam and christianity and the birth of sikhism. Bharatvarsha is the only place on the face of the planet were jews were not butchered. I want to ask, how is this religious tolerance possible for such a long period of time, spanning thousands of years, even before the idea of secularism was born. Was it all by accident?

Do you know how the concept of secularism was born? Secularism is a western ideal that espouses separation of the state and the church. This means that the state will keep its hands off religious practices of the church while the church will keep its hands off matters of the state. It has at its genesis the religion of christianity. There's no hiding the intolerance of the church in matters of religion or state of those times. A man giving scientific proof of the earth being round was liable to be burnt alive in those times! So the concept of secularism was much needed in europe at the time and for all times.

The British came into India with trade and expansion of the cross in mind. Due to the political vaccuum in the country the British were able to settle comfortably as the masters of a civilization that predated the word of God they wanted to spread. This is not an affront to christianity, but an irony that a less prosperous entity(it was a company, not even the entire British nation) could take over an entire, much much more prosperous entity. With them came all their ideals of personal liberty(supposedly a western concept!) and secularism.

What was the ideal of secularism doing in bharatvarsha? it was supposed to be the mantra for religious harmony among the multi-ethnic population that had known that for thousands of years, secularism or no secularism. When at the root of the concept of secularism is the idea of simple disinvestment of powers, the monarchy and the church. Let us still assume it was applicable. what do we have on our hands? Indian history for the past 60 years has seen more religious intolerance amongst the masses than in 4000 or so years of bharatvarsha's history. Another accident?

The truth of the matter is hinduism is an expansionist philosophy. It is by its nature and core teachings assimilative of all religions. It is by no accident that neither islam nor christianity was spread by the sword in bharatvarsha. when you are not threatened, you will not pick up the sword. Whatever accounts of violent expansion of islam in india exists, they recount the misguided efforts of few barbarians. For no religion asks you to go mad. Hinduism by its very nature is enough to ensure all of hindustan(or whatever is left of it) lives peacefully without further squabbling.

Sadly, all we are left of is India with its stunted-secularism. A tangential concept, applied wrongly, to a set of people, the people of bharatvarsha, who knew of no enmity amongst themselves till corrupted by secularism. Whats left of the hindu way of life? A minority represented by misguided right-wing organizations, who dont know the first thing about whatever they talk about and a majority of hindu apologists who go about their lives shunning the tag of a hindu, for fear of being called communal. The minorities on the other hand are rightly confused about their existance, treading back and forming tight groups for their survival. Then the secular parties of india give the closed groups free electicity, get power and continue practising secularism. In return the minorities get the tag of segragationist by the hindu right-wingers.

How can an intra-religious concept for disinvestment of powers work as a inter-religious concept for ensuring religious harmony? Till india is `secular', there will be no peace. We need a return to bharatvarsha. Where no laws are needed to hold people back from massacaring each other. Where hindus welcome all other religions with open arms. No right wing hindu radicals are welcome. Where muslims, christians and sikhs are not rioted against. Where they are free to practise their religion. Is it possible?

Yes it is. But what is the way? A reform in hinduism.

First off, the reactionary nature of current hinduism has to go away. We cannot go around destroying mosques in ayodhya, mathura and kashi, because some misguided moron mughal erected mosques over temples. Why? An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, some might say. wrong, because this is revenge. This is against dharma. Dharma asks you to protect. Hindus failed to protect their places of worship then. So now what is there to cherish? The fact that hinduism can co-exist peacefully with islam and christianity. So dharma asks hindus to protect this. There can be no good in destroying the mosques and using the hindu majority to erect temples. This is against dharma because it advocates ahimsa(yes gandhi didnt suddenly invent it, as western scholars & so called secularists would have you believe). There is no place for force in spreading or practising hinduism. So what of our temples? Erect them back by all means. Alongside the mosques and the churches, by the consent of all and not at the cost of misery of all. When the muslims and christians see the hindu goodwill, they will respect us with their goodwill by not sacrificing the cow near the temple and other things which might be offensive to hindus.

Second, the apologist stance of majority hindus has to go away. For this two things are necessary. First, majority hindus dont know jackshit about hinduism. I was once in a temple in Delhi, where a bunch of teenagers were saying "Om" loudly. I casually asked what the meaning of "Om" was. After some curious glances at each other, one of them ventured with "it means the vedas are great or something?". This was five years ago. Another more recent incident. I had gone to a nearby gurdwara a week back, with a sikh acquaintance. There, during the prayer session, in the space of an hour or so, "Jo bole so-nihaal, sasriakal"(apologies for any mistakes, thats what I caught of it) was said some ten times. When the prayer was over I asked him what it meant. He didnt know. So i asked him, why was he repeating something he didnt understand. He got offended and said "because i am traditional". This from a 24 yr IIT graduate doing his phd in a US univ of quite some repute(how much more intelligent can you get?). A hindu neednt get confused by the multitude of vedas, the various schools of thoughts or the great many hindu thinkers to get a basic understanding of the religion. Almost everything is explainable by the basic concept of dharma. Second, a hindu must realize that its not his fault that he's in a majority. He doesnt need to despise hinduism or religion in itself to be seen as a tolerant person. On the contrary, realising dharma is the ultimate panacea to religious intolerance. Once the righteous hindu returns who understands the value of dharma, petty hindu communal organizations will have no followers.

You might be asking, how can all the tolerance be one sided. It will be not one sided. Remove the reactionist & militant nature of new fangled hinduism, and you'll see the minorities have faith in hindus to intermingle and lose their segragationist stances. Muslims and christians will again realise the strong bonds of cultural similarity they share with the majority hindus of a region. Same language, same food, same land. These cultural bonds are way stronger than pan-islamic bonding with say arab-muslims. Christians will realize that the commands of the vatican, where it goes against their country's interest will not be followed(for eg mass proselyzations using material benefits as incentives).

India never needed secularism. It is indeed the root of all our problems. A return to the hindu way of life is the answer to our troubles of religious disharmony. We dont need to engineer a removal the word secular in our preamble(which by the way, indira gandhi had inserted during emergency, a form of martial law! what a way to introduce something into the preamble!). Let india be truly secular where no religion finds any mention or special treatment in its law. Let us not confuse secularism as the panacea to religious intolerance, when 60+ years of it have shown otherwise. Let India be hindu in spirit once again. We dont need a party to lead us. A party will emerge of us when we ourselves believe in it. Let us learn to believe in it first. This along with democracy is the way to go.

India's contribution in the last 1000 years

2005-06-16T04:01:00.000-07:00

In a popular social networking website, someone asked what was India's contribution to the world in the last 1000 years. He said he had thought long & hard on this but had not come up with anything. Now I dont know whether it was yet another attempt at negation in indic studies. Admittedly the mind wonders at first. Then we go back the annals of time before the British empire was established in India in 1857, and progressively we go back 900 years. The last invention I can think of Urdu, a language borne out of Hindi and Persian. Urdu is not just a langauge, its literature and poetry is unique. It was simple enough to be the language of the masses and eloquent enough to be used in Royal courts. Out of the Urdu grew the Qawwali, a popular song structure. Then the evolution of the entire Hindustani gharana, the invention and the innovation of the sitar. Further back, the numerous improvements in architecture in building temples, mosques and forts. The improvements in forts are apparent in the difference in the Red fort and the Purana Qila and th numerous splendid temples built in South India and in the mosques everywhere, with improvements in techniques of building spires and domes. In the matters of spirituality, the birth of Sikhism, a major religion in the world today. The birth of religious movements like Bhakti started a new art, music and philosphy. The fact of the matter is India has been the spritual and philosophical powerhouse of the world, throughout its existance. It had in place languages, culture, mathematics & philosophy a long-long time ago and through time it simply made innovations in all its learnings. Some assorted examples would be the Indigo dye, which the British imported from the 16th century and further beyond the treatise on astronomy by bhaskara II in the 12th century.

Ofcourse these are not seen as `inventions' by the West, as their idea of invention is something radical developed almost out of accident, eg radioactivity and oxygen. The above mentioned facts are just `cultural innovations of a native tribe'. ;-) That said the west has been a powerhouse of science almost since the renaissance. Colonialism has brought about the blend of spirituality and science that you find India is. So on one hand, you would find people rushing to one of the largest religious congregations in the world, the Kumbh Mela and on the other hand, India is one of the few countries (only 5?) to have the capability to launch satellites and put them in orbit.

I wonder what one would say about the affairs of science in today's world, with everything new discovered, being a little radical than the predecessor and not as radical as the telegraph or the television. Maybe someone 1000 years later will wonder what the world did then. ;-)

Another one bites the Secular dust

2005-06-04T18:38:00.000-07:00

Ah, so the firebrand L.K Advani has realised that there's no point in sectarian politics. Good for him. What I fail to understand though is why did he need to cross the line? Is that the only way to prove how secular one is? In his Pakistan visit he praised M.A Jinnah for his secular credentials. Excuse me? Jinnah & secular? I wonder who initiated the direct action day that led to rioting and who is the Qaid-e-Azam for Pakistan, a country created for muslims of the Indian subcontinent. How can such a man be secular? Yeah I know of his keynote speech in the Pakistan Assembly where he said "You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the State... We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State... I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in due course Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State." The point is why was Pakistan created? Pakistan was created as a land for muslims. Why did muslims need a different land? It was not ordained in the Quoran that the current land of Pakistan was meant to be. A person who thinks hindus and muslims cannot live together cannot be called secular. A person who thinks muslim interests will not be served by a hindu leadership or a predominant hindu leadership is not secular. If these `not secular' statements dont hold, then the RSS too is a secular organization. Infact the RSS is more secular than Jinnah, `cause they maintain hindus and muslims can live together provided muslim `loyalties lie with India'. On some level this is pretty vague. On another level it makes some sense. On another level this is a farce, `cause sometimes hindu sentiments are definitely anti-national like the Hashmipura massacre. So for holding the similar views the RSS is a communal organization while Jinnah is secular? What an irony!

More ironical are the quarters from which the protests are coming from. You guessed it, its the RSS which is shouting the loudest. Maybe that makes sense too, as in, the RSS is indignant that MA Jinnah is called secular while they are not, while they both are different sides of the same coin. Anyway, this just adds to the long list of braindead politicians trying to prop their failing political careers on the crutches of secularism, and proceeding to make an ass of themselves.

Another message that has caused a furore is Advani's regret over the destruction of Babri Mosque. Now I knew the VHP is a piece of crap organization, and this enforces the viewpoint. Will these dumb organizations gain some perspective and some proper spokesperson and president emerge in these organizations?

The full story here.
~

Riots and Laws

2005-06-02T14:16:00.000-07:00

This is reference to the new law regarding communal riots that is being formulated. True to form, secular progressives have yet again displayed their utter incompetence to understand all issues related to religion beyond the obvious. I dont see how they can think of operating with competence on issues they have never tried to understand, that to, in India, which is deeply ingrained in religion and spirituality. They want a social revolution that'll change the fabric of a people who's ancesters date back to 5000 years. Rather a social re-engineering. They never learn do they? Their commie forefathers tried and failed everywhere trying to do the same.

Rants aside, are communal riots law and order problems? Sure, the check of a riot is. Not the progenitor. In other words, can any law prevent communal riots? Havent we learnt that `prevention is better than cure'. Whats the point of creating laws as a cure? The disease of communal hatred wont go away, will it? I guess its not so much a case of not seeing the writing on the wall as seeing and ignoring it. Keep going, another Gujarat might just be round the corner.

rtadhimmi

2005-06-02T11:23:00.000-07:00

What is Rta? Rta according to the Vedas is the basic cosmic concept out of which the Brahman has evolved from. The Brahman is the entity out of which the Gods have sprung out of. What is Rtadhimmi? Thats my coinage(afaIk)! This means a sense of second class stature accorded to all belief of origin of existing order. Put simply, all theological assertions are dhimmi to dear commies. To them there is more truth to Lenin than the Vedas, Quoran and Bible put together. For the Indian commies, the Quoran and Bible are non-existant entities. Faith matters not. What matters is that the muslim and christian are a minority and thus must be `protected'. A nice way to put across what essentially is skewed polity which aims to marginalize muslims and christians towards one party, one ideology, creating communal differences with non-people of the book. Why do they do such things? Votes, votes & votes! Though in all fairness the biggest culprit in this regard is the Congress party. They have a history of not arguing their case properly. Just one incident. The nation responded to Vande Mataram at the turn of the 20th century. Perhaps for the first time in India's contemporary history the masses were awakened from their tamas, united to fight against the British colonial rule. Then in 1936, they were suddenly told that the cry wasnt good enough. Why? Thats because it was a `communal' cry! Say, what? Remind me again what was the war cry of the Indian National Army? Thats right. Vande Mataram. That most pluralistic institution on which the modern Indian Army's ethos revolves. Go on, call the INA communal! The Indian Army as communal! What a farce! What was the objection? Well, M.A Jinnah's stooges told him that the literate translation of Vande Mataram is "I bow to mother", and muslims do not bow to anyone save Allah. Fair enough. Apparently common muslim men and women did not have any problems with it for forty odd years, and suddenly these blatantly communal stooges make it the reason for concordia discors. Why did the INC bow down to these elements? Its not as if non-muslims worship Bharat Mata. Or they ever did. Its a figure of reverence, so the phrase should be interpreted as "I salute ..." instead of "I bow ...". Does Islam prohibit respect and reverence? Ofcourse not. An unneccesary literal translation. Totally unwarranted since the phrase is taken out of a literary work, and the hallmark of a good literary work is the varied sub-context(s) it can be viewed as. For this precise reason Shakespeare is admired more for his literary genious then Feynman, who was a genious in his own right. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay's AnandaMatha was full of euphemisms. Deplorable really, but that was one of the earliest instances when communal elements were not checked.

This communal divide is widening as every master stroke of what I have come to associate with `secular politics', is applied. Ask any hindu what he means by minority appeasement, and out will come responses like Haj subsidies, UCC, biased media, reservations etc. Ask any muslim or christian, what he thinks of hindutva, and out will come litany of woes against communal organizations, the Gujarat riots and the Babri mosque demolition. Fair enough grouses of both parties, no doubt. What are the `secular progressives' doing? They are busy putting down representative hindus as `chauvinists'! What crap! Is that the way to bridge the divide? Things aint good.

Just a passing thought. Why do the `secular progressives' wince at the name of hindu communal organizations like the VHP, yet not a murmur of protests go against aggressive prosetylization by christian orthodox churches? Is the latter any less communal?

Dhimmi

2005-06-02T00:58:00.000-07:00

Dhimmi is Arabic for `protected person'. In Islamic legal scriptures it is a person who belongs to an officially `tolerated' religion. Both in theory and in practice it means a dhimmi has less rights and obligations. It must be noted that obligations in this case are those that arise in the religious and social customs. Since Islam dictates not only faith but an entire code of ethics which determines social and political life, the dhimmi is not done any favor by `less obligations', because to enforce those obligations would be an attack on the dhimmi's religion. Dhimmi basically translates to less rights! Plain & Simple.

I have often wondered if dhimmi is only limited to Islamic countries. Rather if the concept of a dhimmi has to be limited to Islam or indeed religion. Can `dhimmitude' be created by political ideology? In India it certainly seems so. These few years have been a vindication of the dhimmi status of a certain set of people. Traditionally the left has been the bastion of the intellectuals, the left which is alleged to have been in connivance with the British against the then Indian National Congress. The left in India are the communists who enjoy power in the states of West Bengal and Kerala. They are attributed with the slowest of economies, maximum reo d tape and corruption. The communists are not limited to the state govt, their stooges are present in large numbers in the Indian media which has often been accused of bias. The communists no longer go by that name after the demise of the Soviet Union. Actually they had given up on that identity long ago, when the brutalities of Stalin and Mao came to light. They then termed it as `Nehruvian Socialist'. Now Nehru might have been a lesser mortal or more than a mortal, depending on how you see things, for his political handling bore the indelible mark of niavette and steeped in an unchanging ideology. This is especially true in his dealings or leanings as far as external affairs were concerned. Even then, its a fallacy to consider Nehru as an anti-nationalist as these pinko-commies are. So to call themselves `Nehruvian Socialists' is a joke. Some commentators called them `Nehruvian Stalinists' which fits the bill! With the economic boom in India(which these commies were opposed to, as usual), Nehruvian socialism went out of vogue. The communists were wetting their pants as their existance was threatened. Then came the rise of Hindutva and just as when this breed of negationists had run out of cliches, they labelled themselves as `secular progressives'. Thus further tarnishing the concept of secularism in India, which is popularly called pseudo-secularism.

So much for dhimmi, the pinko-commies of India and `secular progressives'. I have not yet described who the dhimmi is for pinko-commies. A dhimmi to a pinko-commie is one who lays out the faults in their analysis, points to their selective unconstructive criticism and links it all to their anti-national viewpoints. I'll be making my observations in this blog about `secular progressives', effect of Islam in India, radical extremism and India's responses and problems. I might be what is being called a neo-liberal, one who doesnt believe in appeasing anyone, one who dares to seek the truth however unpalatable it might be, without any political, religious or ideological slants and finally someone who doesnt want to be nice and politically correct. I place nationalism above every other other ideology. This nationalism is not exclusivist like Nazism but inclusive like the Indian National Congress once truly was.

Vande Mataram!