Tackling Islamic Extremism in India

Locked
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Johann »

Hi Surinder,

+ I was specifically referring to Muslims of the Ganjetic plains, the *largest* and most influential concentration of Muslims in the Subcontinent- not the Punjab, coast or western Deccan.

Although the Mughal Empire no longer had any real authority, it existed in the way that the Caliphate existed 1000-1924, and the ummah and dhimmitude exists today. A shell that nobody dared to destroy.

The formal destruction of the Mughal Empire, the smashing of social order, the loss of power and prestige of the mullahs, madrassas, etc was not something that anyone else had dared to do in the Ganjetic plains.

+ When I mentioned the Sikhs I was not referring to any broader role of the Sikh people in the Raj.

I specifically referred to the conduct of Sikh troops during 1857. They refused to go over to the other side despite *enormous* pressures, inducements and opportunities to do so, and thus constituted the bulk of reliable troops available to the British at the time.

Had the Sikhs revolted in 1857, the EIC/Raj really would have been finished. That they did not was in part because of the instinctive Sikh reaction to the overwhelmingly jihadi character that the 1857 war very quickly attained.

It was the stedfastness of Sikh troops in 1857 that led to massive increases in the recruiting of Sikhs after the war. The Gurkhas saw a similar increase in recruiting after the war.
Last edited by Johann on 06 Dec 2007 20:38, edited 1 time in total.
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

If we have one more bomb last in memory of Dec 6th (today) Babri masjid, would it be wrong to have one more massacre of Muslims in memory of the last bomb blasts?
Was that a serious question? :P
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

abhischekcc wrote:
If we have one more bomb last in memory of Dec 6th (today) Babri masjid, would it be wrong to have one more massacre of Muslims in memory of the last bomb blasts?
Was that a serious question? :P
Does it look like or sound like a joke to you?

Added later: Do you have an opinion as regards the answer?
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Post by surinder »

Johann wrote:I specifically referred to the conduct of Sikh troops during 1857. They refused to go over to the other side despite *enormous* pressures, inducements and opportunities to do so, and thus constituted the bulk of reliable troops available to the British at the time.

Had the Sikhs revolted in 1857, the EIC/Raj really would have been finished. That they did not was in part because of the instinctive Sikh reaction to the overwhelmingly jihadi character that the 1857 war very quickly attained.
Johann:

If the Sikhs had revolted in1857, the tide might have tilted. I am not sure it would have certainly have tilted. There are many reasons why the Sikhs did not cross over. Firstly, they did not have a leader like Ranjit Singh, who was a remarkably cunning and shrewd politician. Devoid of any leader, the Khalsa was just a peasant force. The three wars with British had broken their backs and spirits. They did one last rebellion in 1839, after which they were disarmed and disbanded. But these ifs & buts belong to the speculation of history. I read recently that if Scindia Rajah had joined the rebellion, it could have been the end of the British. If Dogras & Tej Singh & Lall Singh had not betrayed, the British would have lost the Sikh-British wars. If Bengalis & Purbias who formed bulk of the army that invaded the Sikhs not joined the British army, British could not have defeated the Sikhs. In fact, British rule was impossible without local support. We need not merely look at 1857 for it. It was always the case, before 1857 and after 1857. A pure European army could not have done 1% of what the British did using local troops and local wealth to conquer India.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

Shiv wrote:
If we have one more bomb last in memory of Dec 6th (today) Babri masjid, would it be wrong to have one more massacre of Muslims in memory of the last bomb blasts?
If the Prem Shankar Jhas and the pro-islamist hindu dhimmi ilk can provide Babri Masjid as the excuse for any terrorist act committed by Indian islamists, it seems perfectly legitimate for hindus to coopt such justifications in violence against muslims. There is certainly nothing funny in the above question.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Johann »

surinder wrote: If the Sikhs had revolted in1857, the tide might have tilted. I am not sure it would have certainly have tilted. There are many reasons why the Sikhs did not cross over. Firstly, they did not have a leader like Ranjit Singh, who was a remarkably cunning and shrewd politician. Devoid of any leader, the Khalsa was just a peasant force. The three wars with British had broken their backs and spirits. They did one last rebellion in 1839, after which they were disarmed and disbanded. But these ifs & buts belong to the speculation of history.
Hi Surinder,

1857 was a unique moment in recent Subcontinental history - never were the British so weak, and once the tables turned never were the Muslims so thoroughly subdued.

There was no single leader, let alone a Ranjit Singh like figure for 'Bengali'/Oudh troops, Hindu or Muslim, even though the ineffectual Bahadur Shah Zaffar and the Mughal throne was the symbols they rallied around.

Troops responded as individuals and as units to the currents floating about - fears that the British were going to impose christianity, years of rumours that the Mahdi was coming to smash the British, a sense that new British officers were growing arrogant and distant towards the Indian NCOs, etc.

54 out of the 75 regiments from 'Bengal' (which then included much of Ganjetic India) in the EIC's Bengal Army mutinied, and most of the remainder were disarmed and disbanded before they could mutiny. Disarming meant that at the very least they werent available for military duties.

Without the 16,000 -the second largest group in the Bengal Army- Sikh soldiers who held firm, the British in Ganjetic India would all have been dead. The Madras and Bombay Presidencies might have limped on, but that is far from certain.

The Sikh soldiers were impervious to the currents that swept the 'Bengali' Ganjetic troops.

Bahadur Shah Zaffar and the restoration of the Mughal system was not a symbol they could rally around, given that they had rejected dhimmitude to Islam.

Nor did they believe that the British could or would replace their religion with christianity given their survival in battles against people like Aurungzeb.
Last edited by Johann on 06 Dec 2007 21:44, edited 1 time in total.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

abhischekcc wrote:
If we have one more bomb last in memory of Dec 6th (today) Babri masjid, would it be wrong to have one more massacre of Muslims in memory of the last bomb blasts?
If you can guarantee a massacare EVERY time, there is a bomb blast, I will guarantee you, bomb blasts will cease.
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

shiv wrote:
abhischekcc wrote: Was that a serious question? :P
Does it look like or sound like a joke to you?

Added later: Do you have an opinion as regards the answer?
Yes, I do actually.

And the answer is no. You are free to think of me a psec, macaulite, dhimmi for giving that answer.

The simple reason is that IMs are not responsible for such acts - it is PMs.
PM stands for Pakistani muslims, not Manmohan Singh, BTW.

The only way to permanently shut down pakistani terror against India is to rescind the Indus Water Treaty, and then to make them beg for every drop of water thereafter.
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

ShauryaT wrote:
abhischekcc wrote:
If you can guarantee a massacare EVERY time, there is a bomb blast, I will guarantee you, bomb blasts will cease.
Really?

The packees come and kill some of us. Then some of us kill the rest of us. If this is poetic justice, then devil must have taken up poetry.


On a serious note -
Hindus have retaliated against several muslim excesses, and have not retaliated against several others. In all these decisions, it was the militant Hindu leadership that decided whether to retaliate or not. IT IS BECAUSE THIS LEADERSHIP PRACTICED A SITUATIONAL AUTONOMY THAT GAVE THE INDIAN MUSLIMS A REASON NOT TO ENTER A 'FINAL FIGHT' WITH THE HINDUS.

In common English, Hindus can turn on or off the violence against muslims. The logic of this decision is not understood by outsiders. Grave provocations like attacks on Swaminarayan Temple or the Hanuman Temple did not result in massacres. But an apparently lower provocation like the Godhra train massacre resulted in a riot that changed the face of Indian politics. I will not explain the rational behind this apparent irrationality, leaving you to figure it out on your own.

But the upshot of this is that the reaction of Hindus is not under the control of outsiders. They cannot provoke a riot at a time and place of their choosing, but we can. And most importantly, it is the militant Hindu leadership that decides whether muslims are to be punished or not. Most muslims would prefer that a violent reaction not come their way, hence they do not take the road of violence.

I gaurantee you, if we react violently to EVERY bomb blast, even those IMs who are not violent will learn to make bombs.

It is not the docility of the Hindus that keeps IMs in line. It is our ability to turn the violence on or off - at will, that keeps them pacified.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

abhischekcc wrote:The simple reason is that IMs are not responsible for such acts - it is PMs.
PM stands for Pakistani muslims
IM's are not responsible !!!!
satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Post by satyarthi »

Johann,

I was puzzled by your use of the phrase "ganjetic plain", but then I had an eureka moment. I know "Ganja" is/was quite commonly practiced amongst the hordes of sadhus in the plains of river Ganga, so it may be justifiable to call it the "Ganjetic" plain, instead of the "Gangetic" plain. :)
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

ShauryaT wrote:
abhischekcc wrote:The simple reason is that IMs are not responsible for such acts - it is PMs.
PM stands for Pakistani muslims
IM's are not responsible !!!!
Look, why do you have to paint everyone with the same brush? If you do, you are falling into the place that Islamists want - they want a conflict, because:
1. It enable them to strengthen their stranglehold over other muslims.
2. They are confident of victory, and do not mind a final battle - because it is only a step towards 'final victory' - which is the Islamisation of the world.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

abhischekcc wrote:It is not the docility of the Hindus that keeps IMs in line. It is our ability to turn the violence on or off - at will, that keeps them pacified.
You can also view the above to say, it is because there is a good probability that a Hindu reaction may not occur, that the IM's consider violence as a practical option.

PS: You seriously do not believe, every time, there is an alleged connection to the LeT and JeM? do you?
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

abhishekcc wrote:
It is not the docility of the Hindus that keeps IMs in line. It is our ability to turn the violence on or off - at will, that keeps them pacified.
I may have been off the planet when the Indian Hindus "turned their ability to conduct organized violence on and off"...seriously, on what basis are you making such claims? Can you list such incidents where violence was turned on and off by hindus?

Hindus are not just "docile" -- they are actively aiding the islamists for the most part -- the braindead drool from the likes of pro-jihadi hindus like Prem Shankar Jha should make that much clear.

Surinder had posted a list of muslim-initiated riots in India since 1947 -- hindus pretty much GUBO-ed every time, AFAICT, but maybe your reference points are different.

Pointing to the "pakistani hand" every time Indian muslims commit terrorism in India has become the way for dhimmis in the Indian govt. to justify inaction against terrorism conducted by Indian muslims. Even before the smoke clears, some genius from the Indian govt. will proclaim that "evidence points to pakistan" and being the gullible ****s we Indians are for the most part, this "Explanation" is swallowed whole because that is easier than questioning the motives of the lowlives in the Indian govt. who provide cover to Indian jihadis in the name of secularism.
derkonig
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 08 Nov 2007 00:51
Location: Jeering sekular forces bhile Furiously malishing my mijjile @ Led Lips Mijjile Malish Palish Parloul

Post by derkonig »

If we have one more bomb last in memory of Dec 6th (today) Babri masjid, would it be wrong to have one more massacre of Muslims in memory of the last bomb blasts?
If you can guarantee a massacare EVERY time, there is a bomb blast, I will guarantee you, bomb blasts will cease.

Really?

The packees come and kill some of us. Then some of us kill the rest of us. If this is poetic justice, then devil must have taken up poetry.
au contraire dude.
haven't you heard of the saying:
islamists are either at your throat or at your feet.

the biggest bullies can also be the biggest cowards.
if only the hindus of this nation had taken to a tit for tat attitude, the motherland would have long before been cleansed of all these problems.
Grave provocations like attacks on Swaminarayan Temple or the Hanuman Temple did not result in massacres. But an apparently lower provocation like the Godhra train massacre resulted in a riot that changed the face of Indian politics. I will not explain the rational behind this apparent irrationality, leaving you to figure it out on your own.

But the upshot of this is that the reaction of Hindus is not under the control of outsiders. They cannot provoke a riot at a time and place of their choosing, but we can.

And most importantly, it is the militant Hindu leadership that decides whether muslims are to be punished or not.
what is this new species you talk of?
when did you ever sight such "militants"?
Most muslims would prefer that a violent reaction not come their way, hence they do not take the road of violence.
but they would not mind indulging in some violence against the kaffir every now & then.
its rather comic how they first start the fire & then whine about the backlash(something which rarely happens). it sure takes talent to play the criminal & victim alternately with such seamless integration.

muslim violence - justified, genuine grievances, minority rights, poverty, unemployment, we need to understand the core issues, blah blah....
the hindu payback - oh so communal, genocide, holocaust, merchants of death, fascists, state terrorism...
I gaurantee you, if we react violently to EVERY bomb blast, even those IMs who are not violent will learn to make bombs.
again wrong, inherent violent tendencies among the "peaceful" people will ensure that they will learn to bomb, pillage, riot & cause mayhem even without any necessary "provocation" or cause.

need proof? have a look at the news coming out of paris, brussels, amsterdam, hamburg, sweden, italy & basically most of W.Europe. in paris, the muslims there have made rioting a monthly event.

the paris riots of 2006 were started when a bunch of muslim teenagers were electrocuted when they tried to hide in a transformer when they were fleeing the police.
the 2007 riots started coz a bunch of muslims were trying to escape the police after stealing a bike & in the process were crushed under a police vehicle.

now, in all these years, i am yet to see or hear of people of any other ethnicity/nationality who would riot over such incidents.

back home, look at the moplah riots on 1930s. muslims rioted against hindus for no reason whatsoever. if yer ummah goes bust, why dont ya go to turkey & riot there? & how do you explain the danish cartoon riots?
& what fig leaf will you provide to whitewash the expulsion of the kashmiri pandits by the muslims?

& pray what was the reason for the godhra train massacre? it was a well planned man slaughter of those 58 innocent souls. period.
It is not the docility of the Hindus that keeps IMs in line. It is our ability to turn the violence on or off - at will, that keeps them pacified.
there you go again. it is our docility & dhimmitude & LKK attitude which works to our detriment. & pray how many times did this "violence" get turned "on" against the IMs post 1947?

a bully can be kept in check on when it is made clear in no uncertain terms that any attempts by the bully to indulge in unwanted activities will automatically lead to a massive dose of pain on the bully.

besides, these days, I guess it will not be absolutely accurate to just blame the pukis & BDees for all islamic terrorism in india. the enemy is no longer just at the gates, it is also well within. unless, the common hindu realizes that, god save this civilization. its a miracle that the indic civ. lhas asted for so long despite having been invaded by every 2 bit barbarian. but miracles don't happen everytime. sometimes, the people need to act.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5778
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Post by SBajwa »

I have never heard of a single case where non-muslims started a riot (even Babri Masjid was not to start a riot but to raze a non functioning mosque). Non-muslim riots are and have always been defending. while islamist riots are always like Ram Navmi and Muharram processions hitting each other., or someone claiming to have been hit by a stone from a passing procession (always muslims).

Now.. the question is how to make these defending riots expensive for islamists so that they start shying away from starting riots? The first case of expensive riots vs. islamists in free India was in Gujarat (no riots since then).
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Johann »

satyarthi wrote:Johann,

I was puzzled by your use of the phrase "ganjetic plain", but then I had an eureka moment. I know "Ganja" is/was quite commonly practiced amongst the hordes of sadhus in the plains of river Ganga, so it may be justifiable to call it the "Ganjetic" plain, instead of the "Gangetic" plain. :)
:oops: I wish I could blame that on ganja, but every now and then I randomly phoneticise, spoonerise, mistake one sibling for another, etc. I was talking to an Iranian student earlier about Akbar Ganji - maybe that did it ?! Interestingly he had studied as an undergraduate in India. He made an observation that perhaps deserves a place on this thread. To quote: "I dont understand Indian Muslims how they think...they will defend every idiot...Saddam, Khomeini, Osama it doesnt matter...dont they realise that all three of them hated each other? At least pick just one."
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Sleep, Dream and Nightmare , Pat , Present and Future

Post by Prem »

IM are in eternal conscious or subconscious quest to join Ummah. Loyalty to islam demand this from them . This is one reason Ummah issues are taken with much passion in India by Muslim leadership so much so that Indian interests take secondary position. They will always be torn apart as everything sacred for them is non Indian. Even if India become Da ul Islam , She still wont hold any sacredness in their world view.
.
Partition of India sprang from this quest and so does major present issues with them . In 47 , our weak leadership made compromise and for peace sake accepted the partition. Indians ought not to pay any more price and if peace is not possible then 47 issues and solutions need to be revisited . Partition solution was not fuly implemented except in Punjab.
Yes there were loss of men and material; but no more . It is better to have enemy at the gate than within . We can settle score with clearly marked enemy without worrying about internal sabotage etc.

IM should not be denied the right to join Ummah or migrate to Pakistan or Bangladesh . The land of these 2 countries belong to them and same go for land held by Ummah. The success and failure of this will help in lost lasting peace and progress in India . This 47 option for IM will define the Political and Religious Islam forces within the country. Islamist or Political Islam supporters to be given the boot or bullet and rest Indianised .
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

abhischekcc wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:IM's are not responsible !!!!
Look, why do you have to paint everyone with the same brush? If you do, you are falling into the place that Islamists want - they want a conflict, because:
1. It enable them to strengthen their stranglehold over other muslims.
2. They are confident of victory, and do not mind a final battle - because it is only a step towards 'final victory' - which is the Islamisation of the world.
I know of only one brush to be the true one, as followed by muslims of all shapes, hues and sizes. It is only a matter of degree to which that brush is used, in various scenarios.

That brush can deliver master strokes. As it has, to the people who wield them.

Hindus and others will waste their time, if Hindus do not understand the true nature of this brush. If every one of our steps are not calibrated to act against this master brush, then this master brush will eventually get you under its strokes. Attacking just the facades of this brush such as the Islamists or Pakistan and leaving the brush alone will be a fatal mistake.

Islamists want a conflict becuase they know they can win it. Islamists can win it because, Hindus have not understood enmasse this ideology of hatred. Once the Islamists uderstand that the Hindus will fight them and it is unlikely that Islamists will win, they will be ready for a compromise.

Strength respects strength, not weakness. They dream of Islamization of the world becuase the world does not attack the roots of this hatred but as someone said "squat flies".
Last edited by ShauryaT on 07 Dec 2007 01:35, edited 1 time in total.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Sleep, Dream and Nightmare , Pat , Present and Future

Post by ShauryaT »

Prem wrote:Yes there were loss of men and material; but no more . It is better to have enemy at the gate than within . We can settle score with clearly marked enemy without worrying about internal sabotage etc.

IM should not be denied the right to join Ummah or migrate to Pakistan or Bangladesh . The land of these 2 countries belong to them and same go for land held by Ummah. The success and failure of this will help in lost lasting peace and progress in India . This 47 option for IM will define the Political and Religious Islam forces within the country. Islamist or Political Islam supporters to be given the boot or bullet and rest Indianised .
Prem - ponder over this. Islamic hawks exist because Islamic doves are not as dhimmified (Mumbai Hinglish word :) ) as Hindu Doves. IOW: It does not matter, if you take one set of Islamic hawks and take them out. New set of Islamic hawks WILL emerge. It is pre-ordained.

So, what will you do in the year 2150, when the next set of Islamic hawks emerge and now with nearly a 50% Muslim population, in the sub continent?
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Post by surinder »

Johann wrote:54 out of the 75 regiments from 'Bengal' (which then included much of Ganjetic India) in the EIC's Bengal Army mutinied, and most of the remainder were disarmed and disbanded before they could mutiny. Disarming meant that at the very least they werent available for military duties.

Without the 16,000 -the second largest group in the Bengal Army- Sikh soldiers who held firm, the British in Ganjetic India would all have been dead. The Madras and Bombay Presidencies might have limped on, but that is far from certain.
Johann:
What was the fraction of Sikhs in British army in 1857? What was the fraction of them of them in the non-Mutiny army? Any sources for the figure of 16,000? That seems like a large number for the British to recruit within a span of 8 years from the Punjab. Given that British had no Sikh soldiers prior to 1839 to gettng 16,000 in 8 years.
Thanks.
Surinder
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Post by surinder »

Johann wrote:To quote: "I dont understand Indian Muslims how they think...they will defend every idiot...Saddam, Khomeini, Osama it doesnt matter...dont they realise that all three of them hated each other? At least pick just one."
This just shows that even the Iranians don't respect or hold the IM's in much regard. The arabs, even less. The IM's, in their quest to be liked and accepted, will catch on to any issue they can.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Sleep, Dream and Nightmare , Pat , Present and Future

Post by Prem »

ShauryaT wrote:
Prem wrote:Yes there were loss of men and material; but no more . It is better to have enemy at the gate than within . We can settle score with clearly marked enemy without worrying about internal sabotage etc.

IM should not be denied the right to join Ummah or migrate to Pakistan or Bangladesh . The land of these 2 countries belong to them and same go for land held by Ummah. The success and failure of this will help in lost lasting peace and progress in India . This 47 option for IM will define the Political and Religious Islam forces within the country. Islamist or Political Islam supporters to be given the boot or bullet and rest Indianised .
Prem - ponder over this. Islamic hawks exist because Islamic doves are not as dhimmified (Mumbai Hinglish word :) ) as Hindu Doves. IOW: It does not matter, if you take one set of Islamic hawks and take them out. New set of Islamic hawks WILL emerge. It is pre-ordained.

So, what will you do in the year 2150, when the next set of Islamic hawks emerge and now with nearly a 50% Muslim population, in the sub continent?
Shaurya, IM community is trying to hold Ummah Skirt while Ummah dont give a damn . PSec and Islamist crowd is sheltering them from reality . Ummah lovers are unwanted in India as well as in Ummah . Hawks given boot or bullet and rest "Indianised" leave no room for next generation of hawks.
Once Indianized , they have come home and Hawks wont be required.
Last edited by Prem on 07 Dec 2007 03:40, edited 1 time in total.
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Post by vsudhir »

I'm worried that the yamrikis are also targetting Modi for his treatment of EJs. The ummah abduls, I can understand.

But after what happened to some of our best and brightest leaders - from LB shastri to SC Bose to HJ Bhabha, I'd rather Modi double his security.... sala kuch bharosa nahi hai....
Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Post by Rahul Mehta »

ShauryaT wrote:Islamists want a conflict becuase they know they can win it. Islamists can win it because, Hindus have not understood enmasse this ideology of hatred..
Every Hindu has full knowledge and understanding about ideology of hatred. There was never a shortage of knowledge and understanding.

The problem with Hindus have been that they are following leadership policies (aka administrative rules) which makes their own leaders predators rather than protectors. Hindus put way too much faith in their leaders and give them far far more administrative powers. So the Hindu leader instead of protecting people becomes a leech and starts sucking the blood of Hindus themselves.

-----

And btw, islamists are NOT winning anywhere, they are losing everywhere to Christianists. Look at Iraq where Christians have killed some 600,000 muslims. Soon Christians will kill some 10 million (yes 10 million) more muslims in Iran and Iraq. After that, within some 20-50 years, some 25% of middle east people will be killed and rest would have been forced to accepted Christianity by then.

.
Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Post by Rahul Mehta »

vsudhir wrote:I'm worried that the yamrikis are also targetting Modi for his treatment of EJs. The ummah abduls, I can understand.

But after what happened to some of our best and brightest leaders - from LB shastri to SC Bose to HJ Bhabha, I'd rather Modi double his security.... sala kuch bharosa nahi hai....
Treatment of EJs? Whats that?

US will never harm him. Modi is willing to give tons of concessions to MNCs. Modi has done many things that would please US, such ruining education in Guj Govt schools, ensuring that corruption in Guj police increases, courts in Gujarat remain dysfunctional and so forth. Modi has also not campaigned against nuclear deal, which most likely shows that he supports the 123 deal. Why would US kill such a neta who is ruining his own state and would later ruin India when he becomes HomeMin or PM?

The other Congress neta are equally bad. But there is nothing about Modi which makes him different from Congress neta.

----

And within 1 year or so, Modi will give into missionaries. The VHP people I know are telling me that BJP leaders are now telling VHP and bajrang Dal guys to "go easy" on missionaries. And policemen have started cracking down on many VHP guys who abuse missionaries. This was expected ---- why would (corrupt) IPS side with VHP when missionaries have 10 times more money to give to IPS?

.
asprinzl
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 05:00

Post by asprinzl »

I remember reading somewhere that during the Vietnam War,when General Westmoreland warned the North Vietnamese that they will not win the war against America General Giap shot back that Vietnam cannot lose the war. This triggered me to ponder on the current flow of this thread.

After reading much of what Dr Shiv had stated, I am beginniing to think that the Hindus adopted Dhimmi (dove) attitude probably in attempt to "win" by not losing. Thus the dhimmi syndrome.

On the other hand, Muslims have to be hawks and fight. Wthout fighting Islam will lose. There can be no dhimitude among Muslims. The moment dhimitude arrives, that will be the end of Islam or at least the beginning of the end of Islam.

So the present equation is: Hindus cannot lose by not fighting while the Muslims will lose by not fighting.

The current political environment (and perhaps policy making) is preventing the dhimification of the Indian Muslims while actively prolonging the dhimified status of the Hindus.

The Indian Muslims at present know that they are weak and quite powerless and have retreated behind barricades of their ghettos. They have retreated but have not been totally dhimified. If ever there is trace of dhimification, it probably is occuring at a very glacial phase. They are still fighting albeit with assymetric methods.....using the courts, political parties etc to wage their war. Politics is preventing the real dhimmification of the IM.

Perhaps, this is not a natural order. For eventually the natural state of order will prevail. The continued dhimification of Hindus and preventing the dhimmification of IM is double the effort for the policy makers and cannot continue perpetually. Time will come when it would be costly to wage this "two front" war and the policy makers/opinion makers would have to chose a cease-fire on one front to concentrate resources on the second front.

Either the dhimmi situation of the Hindus will gradually erode away or the dhimmification of IMs will pick up steam. Either way does not bode well for Islam. That is not surprising considering that Islam is in un-natural state of being.

I don't think Hinduism will end at all. Those who fear such an outcome need not feel so at all. I am beginning to think that the adoption of dhimmitude was an attempt at retaining "strength" in times of weakness. After all what is the meaning of life? Isn't it the propagation of the species? Didn't Hindus bought themselves space via dhimmitude to do exactly that - propagation of the species? In the end Islam could not win and Hinduism did not end despite the loss of territories, massacres and mass slavery. There is only one way Hinduism can end. That is by miscalculation of a nuclear war with either Pak-is-satan or Chinabad.

I would like speculate a little on this dhimi stuff. I am beginning to think that there are various levels of dhimmitude and also various levels of Maculayism.

Avram
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

If we have one more bomb last in memory of Dec 6th (today) Babri masjid, would it be wrong to have one more massacre of Muslims in memory of the last bomb blasts?
Rye wrote:If the Prem Shankar Jhas and the pro-islamist hindu dhimmi ilk can provide Babri Masjid as the excuse for any terrorist act committed by Indian islamists, it seems perfectly legitimate for hindus to coopt such justifications in violence against muslims. There is certainly nothing funny in the above question.
ShauryaT wrote: If you can guarantee a massacare EVERY time, there is a bomb blast, I will guarantee you, bomb blasts will cease.
I believe the act of Hindus blaming themselves for Muslim grievances has gradually shifted to a new scapegoat - i.e Hindus blaming other Hindus (former dhimmis/"hindutva") but not themselves.

As long as Hindus are blamed for mindless and murderous terrorist acts conducted by Muslim terrorists in revenge or retribution for Muslim causes, Hindus will have to accept the punishment.

When Hindus begin to realize that they should not be held permanently responsible for Muslim grievances, they need to get together and tell the Muslim community in no uncertain terms that this is not acceptable. The only question is what language the Muslim community will understand when you tell them that Hindus cannot be forever blamed for Muslim grievances.

So far Muslim leaders in India, with support from Hindu dhimmis and psecs have chosen to do a tit for tat on Hindus and say "Bomb blasts are a Hindu grievance, so do not hold the Muslim community responsible for a Hindu grievance"

If we stand and argue forever, Hindus will then have to argue that bomb blasts are not a Hindu grievance alone but a national problem, and Muslims cannot withdraw from national responsibility

Muslims then argue that Muslim grievances are a national problem and Hindus cannot withdraw from national responsibility.

This argument can go on forever. There is actually an answer, and we all know that constitutional law considers retribution and bomb blasts as a method of expressing grievances as wrong. But what we have seen in India is the next step of Islamist escalation. When the state applies constitutional law on Muslim terrorists, they accuse the state of being anti-Muslim and that becomes a grievance for which terrorist attacks are conducted against the state - such as police, army and government targets.

The Indian state has bolstered its own defences to such an extent that state institutions are difficult to attack without grievous loss to the attackers. That degree of defence has not been built into soft targets like markets and bus stands. So Islamist terrorists attack soft targets as part of their overall desire to relentlessly attack the Hindu enemy for Muslim grievances.

Islamism is a powerful tribal mindset. Sooner or later, Hindus will get provoked and do a tit for tat killing, and this too has happened time and again. The only difference is that Hindus wail, beat their brows and cry when they do that, while Muslims accept killing in the name of Islam as a normal human activity.

The problem lies in Islam and the perpetuation of core principles of Islam.

But Hindu thought processes are not much more advanced than Islamic thought processes. Many Hindus agree with tribal tit for tat and vigilante justice. If you read the Islamic injunctions about Qesas crime you will see claims that that system of justice is aimed at local level solution of problems without state involvement. Catch a thief and bash him up. In addition, Hindus have over the centuries acquired Islamic morality with regard to women as opposed to the freedom we are supposed to represent. The vigor with which the Shiv Sena opposes "western Christian Macaulayite Valentine's day" is no less than the vigor with which Islam applies similar norms.

Ultimately, constitutional law, the process of law and law enforcement starting from government, police and judiciary has to be held sacred and inviolable by every citizen of a country, netas and awam alike.

But I believe we can have a rating system to assess what percentage of the population believes in the inviolability of the constitution and the institutions that uphold it.

On a scale of 1 to 100, I would rate the US as scoring 95% in its citizens' respect for the constitution and law. i would rate India's score as 50%. Pakistan probably scores 15%.

My scoring or 50% for India can be analysed further - but people are welcome to question and be critical of my analysis. We can assume that India's 50% non respect for constitution is split into 15% + 35%. The 15% is from Muslims who subscribe to sharia more than constitutional law. The other 35% comes from the rest of India's population who again have varying beliefs and faith in tribal justice systems and the leaders we elect have the same degree of loyalty to those systems.

Under the circumstances the surest thing to expect sooner or later is a blowback against the Muslim community in the form of a communal clash somewhere or the other. In the short to medium term this is likely to occ.

In this period i would like to see/hear some things:

1) For those who claim to be genuinely interested in the upliftment of Muslims in India I ask that they must stop condoning terrorism by Islamic groups by saying that such terroism is a natural outcome of Muslim grievances. Ths is totally unaccptable.

2) If Muslim terrorism is a natural outcome of Muslim grievances, them a massacre of Muslims in retaliation for terrorism is an equally natural outcome, and need not be condemned. it should be "understood" and given sympathy. Guilt and Hindu self flagellation are unecessary.

3) There must be uniform understanding that both the above actions are wrong and unacceptable. Trying to score political points by siding with one group while lampooning the other will only perpetuate the cycle of terrorism and retribution.
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Post by Pulikeshi »

asprinzl wrote: There is only one way Hinduism can end. That is by miscalculation of a nuclear war with either Pak-is-satan or Chinabad.
Hinduism is Sanathana (Eternal) Dharma :mrgreen:
But as you correctly point out, everything bound by the rules of entropy -
Nothing lasts eternal unless it replicates and can defend itself.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Johann »

surinder wrote:
Johann wrote:54 out of the 75 regiments from 'Bengal' (which then included much of Ganjetic India) in the EIC's Bengal Army mutinied, and most of the remainder were disarmed and disbanded before they could mutiny. Disarming meant that at the very least they werent available for military duties.

Without the 16,000 -the second largest group in the Bengal Army- Sikh soldiers who held firm, the British in Ganjetic India would all have been dead. The Madras and Bombay Presidencies might have limped on, but that is far from certain.
Johann:
What was the fraction of Sikhs in British army in 1857? What was the fraction of them of them in the non-Mutiny army? Any sources for the figure of 16,000? That seems like a large number for the British to recruit within a span of 8 years from the Punjab. Given that British had no Sikh soldiers prior to 1839 to gettng 16,000 in 8 years.
Thanks.
Surinder
Hi Surinder,

The British started recruiting Sikhs for Sikh regiments in 1846, right at the end of the first Anglo-Sikh war to form the Corps of Guides/Punjab Field Force (Piffers). The idea was to absorb Khalsa soldiers at lose ends after the war.

IIRC on the eve of the war there was something like 4-6,000 Sikh infantry and cavalry in service - the regiment for example in Patna/Dinapore played a key role in shutting down the secret Deobandi headquarters that was supposed to have co-ordinated jihad from the NW Frontier all the way to Bengal. They literally held the fort while the British elsewhere assembled relief (and retaliatory) forces.

The massive four-fold increase in Sikh recruiting took place in 1857 itself as the 'Bengal Native Infantry' regiments mutinied. The lack of an uprising in Punjab (apart from 'Bengali' regiments slipping away to join the fighting in the Gangetic plains), and the loyalty of Sikh regiments in the middle of total breakdown convinced people like Henry Laurence that this was the best bet.

Take a look at the military histories of 1857, the Sikh regiment, Piffers, etc for numbers. Orbat.com also has a very good historical section.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Johann »

surinder wrote:
Johann wrote:To quote: "I dont understand Indian Muslims how they think...they will defend every idiot...Saddam, Khomeini, Osama it doesnt matter...dont they realise that all three of them hated each other? At least pick just one."
This just shows that even the Iranians don't respect or hold the IM's in much regard. The arabs, even less. The IM's, in their quest to be liked and accepted, will catch on to any issue they can.
This was a very bright young man who is very, very, very angry at the mullahs in Iran who have made life so difficult for educated middle-class Iranians like his own family.

Before he transferred to a proper college he briefly registered at a predominantly Muslim college for visa reasons. Although this was not run by mullahs, the entire environment was suffused with soft Islamism - Islam is wonderful, the ummah is wonderful, those who criticise these things or any (in)famous Muslim are anti-Muslim bigots, etc. No critical thinking whatsoever.

He is essentially an ex-Muslim, so dont take his opinions as representative of all Iranians. But as you can imagine with his background he couldnt stand the attitudes he saw.

The point is that this diffuse soft Islamism is itself designed to be cluless of the realities within the Muslim world - however the soft Islamist isnt as hard to live with as the hardcore Islamist. He or she generally isnt a trouble-maker (although some will make the transition), but serves as a the shock absorber between the Islamic hawk and the non-Muslim dove.

The college in question was truly mediocre in academic terms - but despite this it was flush with funds and expanding. Its fundamental selling point was that it was 'Muslim'. This meant that although it could fill its seats, non-Muslims had no interest in attending. Rather than the college changing Indian Muslims, it is meeting the demands of communities that seek a relatively modern education but prize the fostering of soft Islamism above academic quality.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

This is in uncle land?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

shiv wrote: 3) There must be uniform understanding that both the above actions are wrong and unacceptable. Trying to score political points by siding with one group while lampooning the other will only perpetuate the cycle of terrorism and retribution.
Shiv I understand you are looking at maintaince of the "Indian" state with concerns around tribal laws etc etc. Also discussions which should be in sync with the acceptable scenarios etc.

However; I will repeat one point; the trouble is Islam and Hinduism(or Modern world) are at civilizational loggerheads with each other in a very fundamental way. While all you have said is true and the problem I allude to is indeed too big to be wrapped your mind around; this still does not change the fact that it will have to be tackled and any thing short of it will be actually a perpetual war.

Both Hindus and Muslims skirt the question by being Dhimmi or Sufi in their relative cases and trying to be human rather than being Islamic; however I dont think the situation will continue this way for long.

The civilizational conflict lines are becoming clear and more prononuced its only a matter of time before one side loses or wins.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Sanku wrote:
However; I will repeat one point; the trouble is Islam and Hinduism(or Modern world) are at civilizational loggerheads with each other in a very fundamental way. While all you have said is true and the problem I allude to is indeed too big to be wrapped your mind around; this still does not change the fact that it will have to be tackled and any thing short of it will be actually a perpetual war.

..

The civilizational conflict lines are becoming clear and more prononuced its only a matter of time before one side loses or wins.
Sanku I believe the conflict lines have been clear for centuries. I only think the balance needs to be tilted way from what it currently is in India. I see that as just one step in the consolidation of the Indian state - which is curently the only state that many of us can lay claim to in more ways than just a place of residence.

..besides... it's a good time in history to strike - or at last start talking about what is right and wrong.
derkonig
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 08 Nov 2007 00:51
Location: Jeering sekular forces bhile Furiously malishing my mijjile @ Led Lips Mijjile Malish Palish Parloul

Post by derkonig »

Rahul Mehta wrote:
vsudhir wrote:I'm worried that the yamrikis are also targetting Modi for his treatment of EJs. The ummah abduls, I can understand.

But after what happened to some of our best and brightest leaders - from LB shastri to SC Bose to HJ Bhabha, I'd rather Modi double his security.... sala kuch bharosa nahi hai....
Treatment of EJs? Whats that?

US will never harm him. Modi is willing to give tons of concessions to MNCs. Modi has done many things that would please US, such ruining education in Guj Govt schools, ensuring that corruption in Guj police increases, courts in Gujarat remain dysfunctional and so forth. Modi has also not campaigned against nuclear deal, which most likely shows that he supports the 123 deal. Why would US kill such a neta who is ruining his own state and would later ruin India when he becomes HomeMin or PM?

The other Congress neta are equally bad. But there is nothing about Modi which makes him different from Congress neta.

----

And within 1 year or so, Modi will give into missionaries. The VHP people I know are telling me that BJP leaders are now telling VHP and bajrang Dal guys to "go easy" on missionaries. And policemen have started cracking down on many VHP guys who abuse missionaries. This was expected ---- why would (corrupt) IPS side with VHP when missionaries have 10 times more money to give to IPS?

.
the plate ran away with the spoon
& the cow jumped over the moon?

really, where did you get such trash from?
modi has done all round development for gujarat. why dont you go there & have a first hand look. EJs & Js will surely be gone from gujarat for good soon.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

derkonig wrote: really, where did you get such trash from?
modi has done all round development for gujarat. why dont you go there & have a first hand look. EJs & Js will surely be gone from gujarat for good soon.
derkonig; friendly warning; this is RM Bhai you are talking too. According to him all ills in the world are born out of the fact that Jury system is abolished. If there was a jury of peers looking at every action the world would be Ram rajya.

He gets this single point to apply to all the topics and threads. Engaging is discussion with him will lead to a thread derailment and naught else.

Cheers...
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Johann »

ramana wrote:This is in uncle land?
No, the Muslim college he briefly attended before moving on was in India.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Post by Murugan »

I would like speculate a little on this dhimi stuff. I am beginning to think that there are various levels of dhimmitude and also various levels of Maculayism.
And different level of Muslims too and various level of muslim dhimmitude.

***

you may give them the ratings and level grades and group them very easily

1) APJ AK, Azim Premji, Khorakiwala
2) Khan Actor Family and other famous IMs of Bolly Wood
3) Javed Akhtar, Lakshya Fame Javed Akhtar etc
4) Sayed Shahbuddin, H Ansari : who cares more for american terrorism than Isalmic terrorism in India
5) Simi/JI activists, Terrorist sympathizers
7) Terrorists themselves
8) fence sitters, misguided IMs

You may find that few will benefit outta izlamization and few will lose
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Post by Murugan »

Here, we are also over-generalizing the dhimmification of India, ill-informed about subservient attitude of Hindus and blah blah talks forgetting that the invaders and islamic rulers were backed by Khalifas, shahs of iran etc who were very strong at particular time and had lots of looted wealth at their disposal to fund various activities to spreading the faith.

The people especially Hindus who were pitted against them were recovering from devastating but unsuccessful invasion of Huns in around early sixth centuries. No doubt the huns were defeated but Gupta empire ended after that. In absence of central authority North India reverted to small republics and small monarchical states. (except for Harsha After the downfall of the Gupta Empire in the middle of the sixth century C.E., Harsha united the small republics from Punjab to Central India) and empty coffers (in absence of looting and pillaging as state policy) Harsha died in the year 647 AD. He ruled over India for 41 years. After Harsha's death, apparently without any heirs, his empire died with him. The kingdom disintegrated rapidly into small states.

Despite all blah blahs of ruling India for 800 years and other BS the fact is The Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent mainly took place from the 13th to the 16th centuries and died in the first half of 18th century around 1750 AD., though earlier Muslim conquests made limited inroads into the region, beginning during the period of the ascendancy of the Rajput Kingdoms in North India, from the 7th century onwards.

What does however, make the Muslim invasions different is that unlike the preceding invaders who assimilated into the prevalent social system, the Muslim conquerors retained their Islamic identity and created new legal and administrative systems.

And despite the claims of islamic unity etc, the mughal rule declined after the fall of the cushion areas (afghanistan etc) to other islamic looters and pillagers like nadir shah and abdalis as well as to other various Hindu kings in the internal parts of india
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Post by Murugan »

During British Rules and after independence the resistance to pro-Dar-ul-islam activities continued.

RSS was in forefront in this battle right from 1925 (ill date). Though many do not like the clothes/dress codes and ideology of this organiztion, people have failed to understand and appreciate the wide spread and deep penetration of this organization and its ideology which has seen the third generation countering this moronic, idiotic and bloody activities of Jihadis in India.

Compared to such efforts, the Internet based penetration is very limited penetration and spread wise, language is the issue.
HOW ABOUT BR IN HINDI?.

Very few people know about BR in india (BR is also very young no doubt) but almost everyone knows the existence of RSS, BajranG Dal or VHP and also know why they are for, though these groups are having different type of integration etc.

People ready to talk about reconciliation of IMs in india, will not stop that hatemongering of such hindu organizations and will keep on telling the people about how much dhimmified you (anglophone audience only). I would like to ask them, whether you have tried to feel the pulses of non-anglophone majority hindus, what are their views and takes on the issue?

This is the weakness of Hindus, especially anglophone hindus who have never worked for such organization but only heard or read about them via dhimmedia.

After anglophone macaulite indians took the centrestage of indian polity, the hindus have suffered a lot by these Anglophone Dhimmis.

This is actually the class of Hindus – the anglophone hindu dhimmis
(anglophone does not mean ONLY english speaking hindus, but the Hindus who have grown up in PSEC atmosphere and studied more of a western/secular education and consider Secular values of JN as ultimate for peaceful living) who are doing harm to the all out efforts being made for decades.

like to mention that We are talking and we have talked about how to defend ourselves from Islamic jihadists and counter dhimmis endlessly without any concrete plan to defeat them and eventually overcome these devastating political ideology called …
The ideology, which earlier gained from looting/pillaging now being funded by “Cursed by Crude Oilâ€
Locked