Tackling Islamic Extremism in India

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

Post by shiv »

JCage wrote: And why dhimmitude? Simply the violence man...reading Indian history with a mind focused on what people went through is not a good thing to do...since its mind boggling as to the violence unleashed upon the Hindu community by Islam.

There is simply no parallel in the scale. With such repeated violence and mayhem, you learn over time not to speak anything critical of the likes of Mohammad and others. Its no coincidence that a resurgence in Indian spirituality with preachers like Vivekananda et al took place when the British were in power. During the ancient era they would be simply cut down moment they became popular and dared to question the Islamic rulers dogma. And such was the fate that befell the increasingly popular Sikh gurus.

We today, who are Hindus, are survivors of those who either escaped the violence by fleeing to other areas, or were in places where imperial rule didnt exist to that extent, or were dhimmis or were coopted. Even in vast country like India, significant swathes of the entire land were "touched" by Imperial Islam, and that touch was not humane and graceful when its authority was questioned. And rejecting Islam is questioning authority.
Exactly JCage! Well put!

A widespread understanding of this fact needs to occur!
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

OK let me talk about the "Dhimmi Game".

First, this is not a "game" but an attempt to explain reality and an attempt to factor in the consequences of certain types of predictable behavior and responses to that behavior.

I will start with the situation as we have it now - "the story so far" if you like.

We have believed that there are two forces in action: Islamists and Hindutva. There was a simplistic assumption that these forces are exactly zero sum, exactly opposed to each other and that sheer strength would cause one to be overwhelmed.

But it did not work that way. Hindutva soon found that it was firmly being clubbed in the same category as terrorists. It was OK for Islamists to have a 1000 years history of killing, but the slightest opposition to that put "Hindutva" in the same "killer" camp. The frustration that this caused led to the evolution of explanations for this. Like scientists of an earlier era thought of "aether" and now speak of "dark matter", the existence of "pseudosecularism" was invoked to explain failure. The explanation is not wholly wrong, but it is incomplete and somewhat inaccurate. This is the game as seen now and let me call this game the "Islamist-Hindutva-Psec" game

I would like to describe the "Dhimmi game" by using better and more appropriate terminology. I will also try and fit the players of the old "Islamist-Hindutva-Psec" game into the new classification of the "Dhimmi game"

There are 3 players in the game:

I) Islamists
2) Dhimmis (Psec)
3) Former Dhimmis (Hindutvadis)


There is no such thing as "Hindutva", and there is no such thing as "non-Dhimmi". Either you are a dhimmi or a former dhimmi. The old group "Psec" contains dhimmis and the old group "Hindutva" contains former dhimmis. This classification is by behavior and not by religion or political affiliation.

As in the old game Islamists and Former dhimmis are exactly opposed. It is the behavior of the dhimmi that makes all the difference and decides the scoring of the game. The dhimmi will always tend to favor the Islamists, but will conditionally oppose Islamist behavior.

In this game an event occurs. It can be any event involving Islamists - a terrorist attack, father in law raping daughter in law, drunken man's talaq etc

The score is based on agreement or disagreement with dhimmi reaction:

If Islamists agree with the dhimmi reaction to the event, Islamists score 10 points

If Islamists disagree with dhimmis, they score 0 points

If Former Dhimmis (old name=hindutvadi) agree with dhimmis, they score 10 points

If former dhimmis disagree with dhimmis - they score minus ten (-10). This is because, by definition, the dhimmi will not oppose the Islamist even when he disagrees with his action. But the dhimmi is bold enough to oppose the former dhimmi knowing that the force of Islam will support his viewpoint)

Game 1: Islamist action occurs, dhimmi agrees with islamist, Former dhimmis disagree with Islamists and therefore automatically oppose dhimmis

Islamists score 10
Former dhimmis score -10

In a game in which dhimmis agree with Islamists former dhimmis can never score any better.

Game 2: Islamist action occurs, dhimmis disagree with it; Former dhimmis disagree with Islamists as usual and choose to disagree with dhimmis as well accusing them of double standards and pseudosecularism. Dhimmis get pissed off with Former dhimmis.

Islamists score 0
Former dhimmis score -10

In fact game 1 and Game 2 are exact descriptions of what has been happening until now. As you can see, no matter what Islamists do, Former dhimmis (hindutvadis) will score negative, and Islamists score positive.

In fact if former dhimmis (hindutvadis) change their behavior they can improve their scoring. Note that you may not be able to change anyone else's behavior directly, but you can change you behavior to influence others indirectly.

Former dhimmis can improve their scoring by agreeing with dhimmis conditionally. This can occur only in game 2:

I will rewrite the scenario of game 2, but change the behavior of Former dhimmis

Game 2 (rerun) Islamist action occurs, dhimmis disagree with it. But this time former dhimmis welcome the words of dhimmis and support them wholeheartedly.

Islamists score 0
Former dhimmis score 10.

If you play this game out 100 times, and assume that dhimmis agree with Islamists 50% of the time and disagree with them 50% of the time the score for Former Dhimmis will be the same as the score for Islamists provided Former Dhimmis agree to support dhimmis every time dhimmis oppose islamists.

If former dhimmis blindly oppose dhimmis anytime and every time we get the scenario that we have now, with Islamists scoring 500 and Hindutvadi scoring -500.

In conclusion It is important to see how the dhimmi is behaving and to utilize dhimmi behavior to suit one's needs. This game cannot fail because the dhimmi is crushed between Islamist and Former dhimmi and has to choose very carefully. If the dhimmi hates former dhimmis, he will have to vote against his conscience and support Islamists in cases like father in law rapes daughter in law. He will not do that. He will be his usual self but will get unexpected support from Hindutvadis and not criticism.

It is important not to piss off a dhimmi when his behavior suits what you want (Game 2). When his behavior does not suit you, you can never score anything any way (as in Game 1). Use the dhimmi. Don't curse him.

As a real life example, use Barkha Dutt. Don't put a blanket curse on her. When she makes the right noises, support her. When she is making the wrong noises, you can't win anyway, but don't let your bitterness spill over onto the next time she says the right things. You score an own goal by opposing her then. Support her when she says the right things. use her dhimmi behavior to your advantage. Remember dhimmis show bimodal behavior and their existence as dhimmis is secondary to certain freedoms they get and they value those freedoms.

Win over dhimmis. Don't force them into Islamists' waiting jaws.

We have all seen how cooperation can occur from differing ideology to meet a particular need if you look at how the nuclear deal was opposed by a combination of left parties and NDA.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Post by surinder »

shiv wrote:I see a lot of confusion on this forum (and outside) on questions like "Who is a dhimmi?", "Who is not?", "Who is a Hindu fundamentalist?", "Who is not?", "Who is a Hindu revivalist?""Who is not?" etc.

....

A hurried change in dhimmi mindset cannot occur. You are only making things more difficult for yourself by cursing an Indian as being a dhimmi and accusing him of dancing to the tune of his lords. He can't help it. If you are intelligent - you can help.
Shiv,

I read your long post with a lot of interest. This hit the spot for me. It would be most useful if you could save this post in an article on BRF. It is already long enough, if you can just save at a place as an article. Maybe create a collection of a few articles ... Shiv's corner on BRF. If left in the threads, it is basically as good as lost. Even you might forget it.

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

Post by shiv »

surinder wrote: Shiv,

I read your long post with a lot of interest. This hit the spot for me. It would be most useful if you could save this post in an article on BRF. It is already long enough, if you can just save at a place as an article. Maybe create a collection of a few articles ... Shiv's corner on BRF. If left in the threads, it is basically as good as lost. Even you might forget it.

Surinder
Thanks Surinder. I have saved my posts separately, and will probably write some kind of article. but right now my mind is buzzing with some more thoughts that I must put down - in order to organize what's going on in my head. After that maybe.
JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Post by JwalaMukhi »

shiv wrote:OK let me talk about the "Dhimmi Game".

First, this is not a "game" but an attempt to explain reality and an attempt to factor in the consequences of certain types of predictable behavior and responses to that behavior.

I will start with the situation as we have it now - "the story so far" if you like.

We have believed that there are two forces in action: Islamists and Hindutva. There was a simplistic assumption that these forces are exactly zero sum, exactly opposed to each other and that sheer strength would cause one to be overwhelmed.

But it did not work that way. Hindutva soon found that it was firmly being clubbed in the same category as terrorists. It was OK for Islamists to have a 1000 years history of killing, but the slightest opposition to that put "Hindutva" in the same "killer" camp. The frustration that this caused led to the evolution of explanations for this. Like scientists of an earlier era thought of "aether" and now speak of "dark matter", the existence of "pseudosecularism" was invoked to explain failure. The explanation is not wholly wrong, but it is incomplete and somewhat inaccurate. This is the game as seen now and let me call this game the "Islamist-Hindutva-Psec" game

I would like to describe the "Dhimmi game" by using better and more appropriate terminology. I will also try and fit the players of the old "Islamist-Hindutva-Psec" game into the new classification of the "Dhimmi game"

There are 3 players in the game:

I) Islamists
2) Dhimmis (Psec)
3) Former Dhimmis (Hindutvadis)


There is no such thing as "Hindutva", and there is no such thing as "non-Dhimmi". Either you are a dhimmi or a former dhimmi. The old group "Psec" contains dhimmis and the old group "Hindutva" contains former dhimmis. This classification is by behavior and not by religion or political affiliation.

As in the old game Islamists and Former dhimmis are exactly opposed. It is the behavior of the dhimmi that makes all the difference and decides the scoring of the game. The dhimmi will always tend to favor the Islamists, but will conditionally oppose Islamist behavior.

In this game an event occurs. It can be any event involving Islamists - a terrorist attack, father in law raping daughter in law, drunken man's talaq etc

The score is based on agreement or disagreement with dhimmi reaction:

If Islamists agree with the dhimmi reaction to the event, Islamists score 10 points

If Islamists disagree with dhimmis, they score 0 points

If Former Dhimmis (old name=hindutvadi) agree with dhimmis, they score 10 points

If former dhimmis disagree with dhimmis - they score minus ten (-10). This is because, by definition, the dhimmi will not oppose the Islamist even when he disagrees with his action. But the dhimmi is bold enough to oppose the former dhimmi knowing that the force of Islam will support his viewpoint)

Game 1: Islamist action occurs, dhimmi agrees with islamist, Former dhimmis disagree with Islamists and therefore automatically oppose dhimmis

Islamists score 10
Former dhimmis score -10

In a game in which dhimmis agree with Islamists former dhimmis can never score any better.

Game 2: Islamist action occurs, dhimmis disagree with it; Former dhimmis disagree with Islamists as usual and choose to disagree with dhimmis as well accusing them of double standards and pseudosecularism. Dhimmis get pissed off with Former dhimmis.

Islamists score 0
Former dhimmis score -10

In fact game 1 and Game 2 are exact descriptions of what has been happening until now. As you can see, no matter what Islamists do, Former dhimmis (hindutvadis) will score negative, and Islamists score positive.

In fact if former dhimmis (hindutvadis) change their behavior they can improve their scoring. Note that you may not be able to change anyone else's behavior directly, but you can change you behavior to influence others indirectly.

Former dhimmis can improve their scoring by agreeing with dhimmis conditionally. This can occur only in game 2:

I will rewrite the scenario of game 2, but change the behavior of Former dhimmis

Game 2 (rerun) Islamist action occurs, dhimmis disagree with it. But this time former dhimmis welcome the words of dhimmis and support them wholeheartedly.

Islamists score 0
Former dhimmis score 10.

If you play this game out 100 times, and assume that dhimmis agree with Islamists 50% of the time and disagree with them 50% of the time the score for Former Dhimmis will be the same as the score for Islamists provided Former Dhimmis agree to support dhimmis every time dhimmis oppose islamists.

If former dhimmis blindly oppose dhimmis anytime and every time we get the scenario that we have now, with Islamists scoring 500 and Hindutvadi scoring -500.

In conclusion It is important to see how the dhimmi is behaving and to utilize dhimmi behavior to suit one's needs. This game cannot fail because the dhimmi is crushed between Islamist and Former dhimmi and has to choose very carefully. If the dhimmi hates former dhimmis, he will have to vote against his conscience and support Islamists in cases like father in law rapes daughter in law. He will not do that. He will be his usual self but will get unexpected support from Hindutvadis and not criticism.

It is important not to piss off a dhimmi when his behavior suits what you want (Game 2). When his behavior does not suit you, you can never score anything any way (as in Game 1). Use the dhimmi. Don't curse him.

As a real life example, use Barkha Dutt. Don't put a blanket curse on her. When she makes the right noises, support her. When she is making the wrong noises, you can't win anyway, but don't let your bitterness spill over onto the next time she says the right things. You score an own goal by opposing her then. Support her when she says the right things. use her dhimmi behavior to your advantage. Remember dhimmis show bimodal behavior and their existence as dhimmis is secondary to certain freedoms they get and they value those freedoms.

Win over dhimmis. Don't force them into Islamists' waiting jaws.

We have all seen how cooperation can occur from differing ideology to meet a particular need if you look at how the nuclear deal was opposed by a combination of left parties and NDA.
In the above scenarios, only the Islamists and Former Dhimmis are real stakeholders. The Dhimmis do not have any incentive in terms of scoring, as their actions does not in any way affect their own tally. If dhimmis are "moderate muslims", should they be clubbed with Islamists for the purpose of gaming.
The former dhimmis have incentive to not antagonize dhimmis to improve the score. Dhimmis being the vanguards for fight against islamism may not be effective. Fighting stupidity through enlightenment is tough. Dhimmis will try to avoid the problem and not solve it. The space and time constraints will force the dhimmis by not solving the problem to become part of the problem. What are the incentives/disincentives for dhimmis to change their behavior, so they also have a real stake in the outcome. The dhimmis in the long history have not been able to eliminate Islamism. What should dhimmis do to cooperate with former dhimmis?
Last edited by JwalaMukhi on 05 Dec 2007 21:58, 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 »

The Secular Abyss by PS Jha (Outlook)

Here's a classical dhimmi parroting macaulayite lines of secularism against 'appeasement of radical izlamists' as a weak attempt to bolster own credibility when he attacks yindoo fuindamentalism next.

In fact, while harangueing against the radicals (and carefully paying obeiscence to the 'hijacked' one true faith of peace and tolerance), he leaves no opportunity to sideways bash the yindutvavadis. The == is nauseatuingly naive but this dork can still serve our purposes, as shiv outlined.
But it is time the Congress learned not only that every act of appeasement, from the original opening of the locks on the Babri Masjid in 1985 till the hounding of Taslima today, has only strengthened the fanatics of all religious shades in our country.A similar ambivalence by the leaders of the nda government allowed the zealots of the VHP and the Bajrang Dal to damage M. F. Husain paintings and hound him out of India. It also allowed other Hindu zealots to ransack the priceless Bhandarkar library in Pune. In this steady drift towards the political and religious extremes, it is the vast majority of truly secular Hindus and Muslims in the middle who have been steadily marginalised. The Babri Masjid appeasement strengthened, in fact virtually created the VHP and the Bajrang Dal.
{Thanks for remembering not to mention the RSS at this juncture}

The selective slaughter of Muslims these organisations and the Shiv Sena have unleashed on Mumbai, Ahmedabad and elsewhere have given birth to Islamist terrorism in India. The three bomb blasts in UP last week were the most recent evidence.
{Wrong. Whether deliberately or inadvertantly, I dunno.}

Does it not cross the Congress and the Left's minds that to equate an entire community with its most reactionary element is to insult and demean the entire community?
{And what sir, is the said community itself doing if it is indeed feeling misrepresented or demeaned? Do not dalits, tribals and other groups protest what they see as misrepresentation against them? Would you grant at least a 10% chance that enough of the muzlim community maybe 'agrees with' demands for special privileges for being izlamic and sharia and the like? That is a trulky frightening possibility.}

Is this secularism or contempt? And worse still, is this tendency to see all Muslims as a homogeneous and reactionary lot not itself a deep, if unconscious, reflection of religious intolerance?
{See, facts notwithstanding, any perception of izlamic fundamentals themselves as a cause of the trouble happening around ==bigotry, bias, quasi-racism, apartheid etc. Never mind G_d sanctioned muzlim attitudes towards us kuffr. Hasn't the 'be nice and accomodate them, appeae them and humor them' strato not worked all these long yrs, sir?}

We have already suffered grievously from this tendency to homogenise and generalise, first by talking of the militants in Punjab as 'the Sikhs', and then, more dangerously by assuming, in Kashmir in 1990, that since the majority are Muslims, they must all be pro-Pakistan.
{They're pro-independence for the most part. Pro-pak comes next, pro-India is likely last.}

Let us not make the same mistake today. If the Congress does not stand up for secular values, then it is as much of a communalist party as the worst of them.
{By that do you mean BJP or the IUML, the MIM and 'parties' like SIMI etc? Pls to clarify}
Make no mistake, this dude is kinda redefinig the boundaries of what will be 'acceptable' talk among the liberal intelligentsia/DIE in our society. Its heartening to see some criticism of the 'radical elements' in izlam. Hopefully this will expand further to the core problem of the sanction for violence inherent in izlam itself. Lets wait and see, may take 10 yrs or maybe a 100.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

I posted a reply to this online:
Jha says:
"The selective slaughter of Muslims these organisations and the Shiv Sena have unleashed on Mumbai, Ahmedabad and elsewhere have given birth to Islamist terrorism in India. The three bomb blasts in UP last week were the most recent evidence."

Does it not strike Mr Jha that the tit for tat bomb blasts last week in revenge for an earlier misdeed by the Shiv Sena or whoever needs to be condemned rather than being referred to by him as some kind of natural consequence in which the bomb blasts are somehow justified because of the previous outrage?

Tit for tat killings must not occur. Neither Muslims nor Hindus should do that. The rule of tribal law can be ended only with constitutional law. Tit for tat killing by bomb blasts should not naturally follow earlier killings.

Also isn't Mr Jha himself admitting that the Muslim community is involved in the blasts by saying that the blasts were in revenge for earlier killing of Muslims?

If he knows that Muslims are involved in the blasts, and justifies tit for tat killings who is he trying to deliver a lecture to? How is he any different from those he accuses? Jha merely reveals a gap in the India intellectuals ability to apply reason.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

JwalaMukhi wrote: In the above scenarios, only the Islamists and Forced Dhimmis are real stakeholders. The Dhimmis do not have any incentive in terms of scoring, as their actions does not in any way affect their own tally. If dhimmis are "moderate muslims", should they be clubbed with Islamists for the purpose of gaming.
The forced dhimmis have incentive to not antagonize dhimmis to improve the score. Dhimmis being the vanguards for fight against islamism may not be effective. Fighting stupidity through enlightenment is tough. Dhimmis will try to avoid the problem and not solve it. The space and time constraints will force the dhimmis by not solving the problem to become part of the problem. What are the incentives/disincentives for dhimmis to change their behavior, so they also have a real stake in the outcome. The dhimmis in the long history have not been able to eliminate Islamism. What should dhimmis do to cooperate with forced dhimmis?
Good point Jwalamukhi. Thank you for reading, comprehending and interpreting it as it is.

I have no answer to your question:"What should dhimmis do to cooperate with forced dhimmis?" I think you mean "former dhimmis" and not "forced dhimmis"

As I indicated, I think the first thing former dhimmis should do is manage to build up brownie points by giving dhimmis conditional issue based support whenever they start accusing Islamists of wrongdoing. This is a win win situation for former dhimmis.

I am still trying to figure out if there are any more pro-active avenues. But I have been working on an article which I have promised to post on another private site, after which I will post here.
R Vaidya
BRFite
Posts: 128
Joined: 04 Feb 2003 12:31

Islamic Extremism in India

Post by R Vaidya »

I think it is vital to understand Indian society/structure in order to deal with this issue. It is important to de-legitimise the ideas related to Islam [and Terrorism]. First and foremost issue is --Is there a Islamic religious group in India ? or is it a cluster of several castes/sub-castes which are lumped together--for several decades- by the educated and English press.Just belief in allah or prophet does not make it a common group. Hence the attempt should be consciuosly made [ by others] to de-homogenise that group. In other words it should always be a hypenated Muslim like Yadav-muslim or Kurmi-muslim or Jat-muslim or Labbai etc. The process of deligitimising a common identity is important.Since due to the so called common identity --further encouraged by the left for the anti-imperialist front--they tend to localise the global issues like the Danish cartoons.[christians globalise the local issues like the so called attack on nuns at jabhua]. We should recognise that caste is the greatest weapon to deligitimise the Abrahamic faiths.
Also, one should recognise that muslims studying in rural Madrassa are concerned about petty jobs etc. Actually not many terrorists have actually come from these rural Madarassas [even Raja Ram Mohan Roy was a product of it] and more hot heads are from urban /educated/ globalised groups--including Jinnah to Glasgow bombers from Bangalore. Madarassa educated may be backword and mathemaically challenged but just wants some jobs or practice crafts and wants to live in their villages with local hindu etc groups as one more sampradaya--
Actually India has always dealt with Abrahamic faiths using castes to de-homogenise them and make them less worried about the jealous God.
Hence we should slowly stop using a common entity called Islam --as far as India is concerned --but use hypenated entities. Christianity has identity and an entity [ church/Pope etc] and Islam has no entity and only identity. The lack of entity should be leveraged to link the identity to local castes.
rvaidya
JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Post by JwalaMukhi »

Self deleted. As corrections effected in the relevant post.
Last edited by JwalaMukhi on 05 Dec 2007 21:59, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

JwalaMukhi wrote:Yes sir, you are right, I meant former dhimmis. Sorry for the slip.
sir, who is a former dhimmi?
JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Post by JwalaMukhi »

derkonig wrote:
JwalaMukhi wrote:Yes sir, you are right, I meant former dhimmis. Sorry for the slip.
sir, who is a former dhimmi?
Reproducing part of shiv's post:
There are 3 players in the game:

I) Islamists
2) Dhimmis (Psec)
3) Former Dhimmis (Hindutvadis)
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Jwala mukhi, Please fix your post now that shiv pointed out the difference between Forced and former. Thanks, ramana

BTW, On nationalist issues the former dhimmis have been supporting the dhimmis without any reciprocity. In fact this support has made some dhimmis change their tune. Eg. Vir Singhvi is now more open in his columns.

While this strategy is going on the former dhimmis have to seize the high ground on a tipping point issue and make the dhimmis cast of tehir dhimmitude. The Lok Sabha attack was one such situation but did not get converted. Taslima Nasreen made to recant by CPM and the Islamists is another which is not being made use of.

Arundhati Roy should be praised for having spoken up for Taslima Nasreen's civil rights.

What is needed is a modernity with an Indian face.
JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Post by JwalaMukhi »

ramana wrote:Jwala mukhi, Please fix your post now that shiv pointed out the difference between Forced and former. Thanks, ramana

BTW, On nationalist issues the former dhimmis have been supporting the dhimmis without any reciprocity. In fact this support has made some dhimmis change their tune. Eg. Vir Singhvi is now more open in his columns.

While this strategy is going on the former dhimmis have to seize the high ground on a tipping point issue and make the dhimmis cast of tehir dhimmitude. The Lok Sabha attack was one such situation but did not get converted. Taslima Nasreen made to recant by CPM and the Islamists is another which is not being made use of.

Arundhati Roy should be praised for having spoken up for Taslima Nasreen's civil rights.

What is needed is a modernity with an Indian face.
Ramanaji fixed. Thanks.
Agree with the change of tune. Have seen even quicker change of tune, when the possiblity of tragedy stricking closer to near and dear ones increases. Tavleen singh cast her dhimmitude even more when the London bombings occured, where the possiblity of near and dear ones being the victim was highlighted. If I remember, one of her columns immediately after the event she mentioned to that effect. The mindset of having shared destiny with aam admi needs to be inculcated in the DIE.
Fear of going the paki way has not knocked the dhimmis out of slumber.
Abhijit
BRFite
Posts: 530
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Bay Area - US

Post by Abhijit »

as callous as it may sound, the seat of indian dhimmitude is dilli billis and the only time they got out of their drunken jihadpremi stupor was when the bomb blasts happened in dilli. i say, if india is going to be subjected to more terrorist attacks then let it be dilli.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Post by surinder »

shiv wrote:I posted a reply to this online:
Shiv, I noticed that in your response to the article on the outlook site, you seemed tame and held-back. I saw none of the pointed and sharp arguments which you use here on BRF with devastating accuracy. I hope you do not mind my opinion, for I just thought I'd share what I thought.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Post by surinder »

I read in a book on management an experiment tried on monkeys. They put a few monkeys in an enclosed space with one pole which had bananas on the top. The monkeys clamor to climb up the pole to get the bananas, but are discouraged by some strong tactic (like a strong water fountain or electric shock) to not climb. Soon the monkeys learn to not climb the pole and stay docile. Then one monkey is substituted by a new one. The surprising thing is that this monkey did not make an attempt to climb either---it was conditioned by the other dhimmified monkeys. Slowly the whole set of monkeys were replaced by those who never experienced the electric shock. None of them would make attempts to climb the pole. So it might be with Dhimmis too. The original Indians got beaten so badly, that they continued with the Dhimmi trait even after the threat has passed.

Ona related note: You said it takes 100 years to unlearn. I tend to agree with that with two exception: (a) if the society experiences huge shocks to its worldview, then that opinion can change much faster. (2) A religion movement can arise which can change people's world view much faster. But religious movements usually arise out of some turmoil.
indygill
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 24 Aug 2007 17:53

Post by indygill »

Ramana
What is needed is a modernity with an Indian face
This is kind of confusing. Because "Modernity" in India has a very different meaning and it is very closely equated to "Macaulism"....

What is the difference between Modernity, Progressiveness and Traditionalism in regards to indian Context?

And lastly when you say "Indian Face" what does that imply?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

That why I said modernity and not "Modernity". The former implies look at ancient customs and retaining those that are relevant and adopting new ones that make sense. The other is a Western European movement based on progressing away from the stifling control of the Church during the middle ages in Europe.

If you want to know more on my position please visit India Forum where there are a couple of threads discussing Modernity and India for quite sometime before this thread.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Post by Prem »

For society to update itself require mobility . PSec are hinderance as they keep creating fault lines and false groupings with no historical roots or relevance. Unless there is understanding organic whole among Dharmic followers, we will keep wasting enegry without achieving anything permanent . Islamists consider us threat , we must treat them and their allies same and do best to remove the danger using all possible democratic means . Take a look at Punjab , e Dhimmi problem is so minute , almost extinct.
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4226
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Post by Rudradev »

shiv wrote:OK let me talk about the "Dhimmi Game".

...


If you play this game out 100 times, and assume that dhimmis agree with Islamists 50% of the time and disagree with them 50% of the time the score for Former Dhimmis will be the same as the score for Islamists provided Former Dhimmis agree to support dhimmis every time dhimmis oppose islamists.

.
How's that again?

Let's play the game 100 times.

50% of the time, say, Islamists do something and Dhimmis agree with them. Former Dhimmis do not agree with the Dhimmis. The score is

Islamists: 10 X 50= 500
Former Dhimmis: -10 X 50= -500

The other 50% of the time Islamists do something and Dhimmis do not agree with them. Former Dhimmis, per your suggestion of modified behavior, come out in open support of the Dhimmis' not agreeing with the Islamists.

Islamists= 0
Former Dhimmis= 10 X 50= 500

Final score is STILL Islamists 500, Former Dhimmis 0. Admittedly better than 500/-500 which is the situation until now. However, what is the situation in which Islamists take a hit of negative points?

Do we need to include (possibly cultivate and empower, in real social terms) a fourth player here? IE, the Muslim who is disenfranchised and threatened into submission by Islamists? He is the only one who can openly oppose the Islamists in the same way as the Psec Dhimmis openly oppose the Hindutvavadi Former Dhimmis.

So one corollary of this game is that as long as Muslims effectively have one monolithic agenda entirely hijacked by the Islamists, Non-Muslims will always lose (either more or less badly, but still lose). That will be the case as long as the "moderate" Muslims in the liposome surrounding the Islamist oil drop have the freedom to switch their heads and tails around for their convenience, i.e. non-Islamist Muslims have complete freedom to be Islamist when it suits them and broadminded bhai-bhai with the Dhimmis when it suits them.

Circumstances must be created in which these non-core-Islamist Muslims are forced to adopt and defend a distinct and independent stand from the Islamists, for their own best interest.

JMT.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Prem wrote:For society to update itself require mobility . PSec are hinderance as they keep creating fault lines and false groupings with no historical roots or relevance. Unless there is understanding organic whole among Dharmic followers, we will keep wasting enegry without achieving anything permanent . Islamists consider us threat , we must treat them and their allies same and do best to remove the danger using all possible democratic means . Take a look at Punjab , e Dhimmi problem is so minute , almost extinct.
Thats easy to say. they all are in Delhi ruling the roost as WKKs!

Also Rudradev, No Muslim can oppose an Isalmist for they have the book with them. However when issues come up and they have to take recourse to the antedeluvian Shariat interpretation then there is a possilbilty for them to have a change.

Women's property rights are a civil rights issue which can lead to this change.
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Post by vsudhir »

Seems to me the intellectual tools, basis and case against fundamental islam is being prepared in the west and not in India. There too, battle rages between the liberals (multiculti dhimmi-lites) and the so called conservatives (mix of EJs in social conservatism, and libertarians in economic conservatism who are my great big hope) are leading this charge.

The aam literate kafir aadmi on the street needs to ultimately know why he is fighting and why this fight is so important. The rational case for antipathy to islam is also being fought by some courageous ex-muslims (Hirsi Ali and Ali Sina to name just two), again, only in the west.

Going fwd, what happens there will resonate and find echo here. What we (at least some of us) here on BRF are attempting to do, IMVVHO, is vcreate the intellectual/rational basis for our fight against jihad - a prelude to which is the fight against ingrained dhimmitude.

The enormity and importance of this project cannot be overstated, IMHO.
My salutes, admiration and gratitude to the brave souls here leading this charge.

/
Surely, we're not alone. There must be other former dhimmis in India trying to do the same?
pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Post by pradeepe »

vsudhir wrote:Seems to me the intellectual tools, basis and case against fundamental islam is being prepared in the west and not in India.
And is so, since they are the not ones with the dhimmi tag so far. For all the glossing over they do over islamic brutality as applicable to India, they know very well whats at stake.

So if I were them, what would I do? Try to bring the whole thing to a head at a place where I can carefully control and pick off/subjugate the strength sapped survivor.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Post by surinder »

ramana wrote:
Prem wrote:For society to update itself require mobility . PSec are hinderance as they keep creating fault lines and false groupings with no historical roots or relevance. Unless there is understanding organic whole among Dharmic followers, we will keep wasting enegry without achieving anything permanent . Islamists consider us threat , we must treat them and their allies same and do best to remove the danger using all possible democratic means . Take a look at Punjab , e Dhimmi problem is so minute , almost extinct.
Thats easy to say. they all are in Delhi ruling the roost as WKKs!
Prem is still correct: They are not in Punjab; they are in Delhi. You are only proving Prem's point, Ramana.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Prem wrote:Take a look at Punjab , e Dhimmi problem is so minute , almost extinct.
Prem, you have cited the example of Punjab as a model for success but do not explain the costs of the genocidal like civil war, the loss of hundreds of thousands on both sides of Pubjab, the loss of over 60% of the territory of Punjab and last but not the least the creation of a hydra headed monster with a mortal threat to India with half crazed Idiots, willing to blow themselves and half of India up - with the Pakjabi army as the key and only institution of our enemy.

Given the overall context and results achieved, will you still call it a model to follow - even if we forget, the practicality of doing such cleansing, across the length and breadth of India?

Another way to look at it is, would it not have been far better to wage that civil war, in support of a United India? The INC leadership feared blood shed, but they got that anyways! Who is to say that a determined response from the INC in 1947 to meet force against force would have resulted, in a larger blood shed or have made the Islamists back off and compromise?
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Post by surinder »

ShauryaT wrote:
Prem wrote:Take a look at Punjab , e Dhimmi problem is so minute , almost extinct.
Prem, you have cited the example of Punjab as a model for success but do not explain the costs of the genocidal like civil war, the loss of hundreds of thousands on both sides of Pubjab, the loss of over 60% of the territory of Punjab and last but not the least the creation of a hydra headed monster with a mortal threat to India with half crazed Idiots, willing to blow themselves and half of India up - with the Pakjabi army as the key and only institution of our enemy.

Given the overall context and results achieved, will you still call it a model to follow - even if we forget, the practicality of doing such cleansing, across the length and breadth of India?

Another way to look at it is, would it not have been far better to wage that civil war, in support of a United India? The INC leadership feared blood shed, but they got that anyways! Who is to say that a determined response from the INC in 1947 to meet force against force would have resulted, in a larger blood shed or have made the Islamists back off and compromise?
Shaurya:

You are confusing cause and effect and the temporal order of events. The loss of 60% of territory of Punjab, loss of half a million in riots and creation of TSP is not the result of Punjabi (Hindu+Sikh) efforts to cleanse Punjab of Islam. Causality is exactly the other way round. So even if Punjabis had not cleansed their lands, all the three things (TSP, riots, partition of Punjab) were a reality.

Your last para is interesting. INC never thought of anything in terms of violence. Not only did it not practice it, it never tried to understand the phenomena of violence. It did not anticipate (until it was too late) that Punjab/India will be partitioned and Hindus/Sikhs will be cleansed and ancient territory of India will become foregn lands. The writing was on the wall, but the INC leaders (Gandhi & Nehru cabal) could only hear themselves talk---they did not listen to the reality coming their way. The Hindu/Sikh Punjabis, too though more attuned to the Muslim League reality, still did not realize how rude partition would be. They were in for a shock. Anytime you see impoverished, uneducated, disempowered Muslims, never feel content. The H/S did not know what was coming from these riff-raffs. The lived in posh areas like Model Town of Lahore and had tremendous amount of wealth & money & influence in Punjab. They were "Sirs", "Rai Bahadurs", and hob-nobbed with the British. They owned 90% of Lahore and most of prime agricultural land outside. In a matter of months, it was all over. People who had lived in that area since the dawn of history were ejected. They never saw their Lahore, Gujrawal, or Rawalpindi again. The low stature of Islam in this modern world is often ridiculed, but power of Islam is never to be riducled. Never ever underestimate it. You don't want to be the Hindus/Sikhs of Lahore of June/July 1947 (Avaram is to be thanked for this piece of wisdom. I never realized it before he wrote it here). Anyways, INC did not have a clue. Even when partition was unfolding, they did not know what to tell them. Nehru cried, but that is what was needed from a leader. The peacefull movement of Gandhi died at that time, I think. If Indians had followed the path of armed resistance like their fore-fathers were habituated to, Independence might have come sooner and all the violent aspects of it could have been taken into account by it. If partition would have happened, it would have happened at our terms. Instead of a Radcliffe line we might have had a Sharma line (or a Verma line, or a Bhattacharya line, or a Iyer line, or a Singh line). Suitable to India and its concerns. Every thing has a price. Violence has a price; Peace has a price too. Indians finally paid a big price for using the path of non-violent resistance for their indepenence. No INC leader after 1947 mulled over this and talked candidly to the nation. No one said "Sorry, we screwed up." It is a folly to choose wrong tools for the job. INC wanted to avoid violence, it still got it. (A Sikh saint once wrote something that I found rather perceptive: In an early battle Muzlim/Turkish invaders sent in cows on the battle field. The Indian army (Prithviraj Chauhan ?) lost to avoid hurting the cows. But in the ensuing slavery of centuries more cows were killed by these barbarians. The INC and the Dhimmis want to save a few lives, but in the end loose more.)

Surinder

PS: You asked where it can be done now in India. Obviously, no. It is already too late. But the absence of Muslims from the Punjab has had other interesting and not so positive side effects. That is a matter for discussion some other day.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Partition is not settled yet

Post by Prem »

We are talking about Islamist extremists among Muslims living in India .
My understanding is they are onlee few % of total population.
If Naxalites can be handled , NE is gven hard treatment , our very own Punjabis were shown no mercy, there is no reason to treat Islamists with silk gloves . Almost all expect Islamists have sacrificed blood and butter for India yet this abomination of politcal Islam is given space .
The Dhimmis are providing moral support to the protectors of these extremists among Muslims in India thus indirectly promoting Islamism.
Senile WKKs are not represntative of Punjabi sentiments otherwise so many wont be joining the army.
OTOH , present Muslims of India have never been given the choice to stake claim on the Land called Bakistan, a part of Mother India alloctated to them in the name of their religion. Its imperative we know and they know that after partition Political islam has no moral right to exist in India . The ones who want to practice polictical islam ought to be kicked out of Indian terrirtory. Darul Islam has much more land to accomodate them.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Post by Prem »

Shaurya, there is no need for mini Mahabharat . The question of Islamism should have been settled in 47 like it did in Punjab. Yes, the price was paid in blood by Punjabis but it was worthwhile. It is because of this willingness to pay price keep Bakisatani sleepless. The question should be why has ourown GOI or Congressi or Psec, Liberals been making this blood bargain go waste .
Unlike Suridner , i dont think its too late. We have few more decades to control the disease and eventually cure our body politic.
For start , leftists need to go and the next general election will play very crucial role in determining the the right Qibla of Dharmic India .
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4226
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Post by Rudradev »

shiv wrote:
JCage wrote: And why dhimmitude? Simply the violence man...reading Indian history with a mind focused on what people went through is not a good thing to do...since its mind boggling as to the violence unleashed upon the Hindu community by Islam.

There is simply no parallel in the scale. With such repeated violence and mayhem, you learn over time not to speak anything critical of the likes of Mohammad and others. Its no coincidence that a resurgence in Indian spirituality with preachers like Vivekananda et al took place when the British were in power. During the ancient era they would be simply cut down moment they became popular and dared to question the Islamic rulers dogma. And such was the fate that befell the increasingly popular Sikh gurus.

We today, who are Hindus, are survivors of those who either escaped the violence by fleeing to other areas, or were in places where imperial rule didnt exist to that extent, or were dhimmis or were coopted. Even in vast country like India, significant swathes of the entire land were "touched" by Imperial Islam, and that touch was not humane and graceful when its authority was questioned. And rejecting Islam is questioning authority.
Exactly JCage! Well put!

A widespread understanding of this fact needs to occur!
To JCage's excellent point I'd like to add: it isn't just the shock of violence, but the Indic mind's seemingly inordinately short memory for the experience of such violence, that has ensured that Islamist violence has dhimmified our people not just once, but again and again.

For a thousand years we've seen a pattern of the subcontinental non-Muslim being shocked-and-awed into submission by the sheer brutality and scale of Islamist violence, then adjusting to life as Dhimmi for a few or several generations, then sometimes rising up and perhaps even achieving a certain degree of success in resistance, and finally being crushed again because the kernel of Dhimmitude within him was reinforced by a wilfull blindness, a forgetfulness that cleanly filtered out the extent of the enemy's capacity for inhumanity in pursuing his agenda.


How many examples do you need? After multiple failed attempts and receiving Rajput clemency at every turn, Ghori defeats Chauhan and inflicts carnage on his people and culture. Nobody learns any lessons. Bahmani kingdoms visit a holocaust on Vijayanagara. Nobody draws any useful conclusions. On and on we go. Mughals perpetrate genocide, are finally displaced by Marathas and Sikhs, but the Marathas then face defeat at Abdali's hands. More carnage follows. The cycle repeats all the way through to Direct Action Day and the partition... here, the Dhimmis didn't even assert themselves against Muslim power, but went along quite happily accepting that the Hudaibiya offered to them by Muslims against the British was a sincere harbinger of a new dawn in communally harmonious Indic identity.

It continues, of course, to this day. Every terrorist attack in which innocent Dhimmis and Former Dhimmis lose their lives, we still dredge up (all by ourselves) the most rational sounding, most recently founded explanation. It must be Babri, it must be Gujarat, it must be something we did just the day before yesterday that made them blow us up or burn us alive by the scores and hundreds.

We need more than a spine if we're ever to overcome our dhimmitude. We need a civilizational memory that actually functions without the regular purgative peristalsis of self-censorship.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Post by Prem »

Gujrat is offering a its own version of solution as people on the ground are fed up with impeasement. They will not shy away from violence . The indifferece shown by media and elites to the carnage of roasting 52 Hindus alive broke the camel's back.
If they keep pushing , it will be repeated in other states. The DIEs attacks on Modi is indirect support to Islamists eveloving into the Ghazis of not so distant past .
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Post by vsudhir »

Prem wrote:Gujrat is offering a its own version of solution as people on the ground are fed up with impeasement. They will not shy away from violence . The indifferece shown by media and elites to the carnage of roasting 52 Hindus alive broke the camel's back.
If they keep pushing , it will be repeated in other states. The DIEs attacks on Modi is indirect support to Islamists eveloving into the Ghazis of not so distant past .
I hope you are right. Indian elections are always finicky. I remember celebrating that with the NDA moi des had finally gotten a nationalist sarkar that didnt carry nehruvian baggage in economic, defence and phoren policy. Their 2004 setback was an eye-opener.

In Guj, INC has been smart to not make the riots their plank. They know they'll lose. Dhimmedia focuses on riots outside Guj, within the state there are other issues to muckrake around. If Modi loses power this time, that'll be another massive setback for nationalistic politics. IMHO and JMTs etc.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

surinder wrote:You are confusing cause and effect and the temporal order of events.
I have no such confusion but yes, I can be wrong. My understanding is the partition of India was not some pre-ordained eventuality. You are leaning towards that...with the following
So even if Punjabis had not cleansed their lands, all the three things (TSP, riots, partition of Punjab) were a reality.
The writing was on the wall, but the INC leaders (Gandhi & Nehru cabal) could only hear themselves talk---they did not listen to the reality coming their way. The Hindu/Sikh Punjabis, too though more attuned to the Muslim League reality, still did not realize how rude partition would be.
That is right. The Hindu leadership of the INC failed to protect them.
If Indians had followed the path of armed resistance like their fore-fathers were habituated to, Independence might have come sooner and all the violent aspects of it could have been taken into account by it. If partition would have happened, it would have happened at our terms. Instead of a Radcliffe line we might have had a Sharma line (or a Verma line, or a Bhattacharya line, or a Iyer line, or a Singh line). Suitable to India and its concerns.
You are painting a chain of events, which are highly debatable. When was the last time the hindus fought with the Islamists, leading to the partition of the country? The problem is one side fights to annihilate the other but when the Hindus fight and win, it lets the other live and thrive. Why?
The INC and the Dhimmis want to save a few lives, but in the end loose more.)
Not learning the right lessons from your own spiritual sources and not learning the nature of the enemy, you are fighting, along with a lack of preparedness to build capabilities to defeat the enemy, has led to a situation, where weakness and bad judgement is justified.

These judgements and mistakes made have a cost to pay. From my perspective, with little to no benefits, so far, against this war on Islamists.

I am in the Kissinger school of thought, a cilizational fault line can be truly won over, only with the domination of one over the other. All this attempt to forget that hindus are hindus and muslims are muslims, is never going to be a reality, is the proposition. Sooner or later, you walk into the trap that Jinnah has laid, that the reality is two civilizations, who do not see eye-eye on anything cannot live together. One of them has to go.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Post by Prem »

Adharma and Dharma will never mix, so why try . Its neither logical nor desired and make both unhappy.

Jinnah was right , Patel was right . Gandhi, Nehru were both wrong and so is the current PSec crowd. We should thank Jinnah for sucking the puss out of Indian wounds and realize Nehru's mistake of signing pact with Liaqat which inhibited the partition process to cuminate to the logical end . The issue of population transfer should be part of pissss process with parted part of India.
Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Post by Sumeet »

Just few points:

1) For a beginning lets start a special immigration program for IMs to US, Canada, UK, Australia and other countries. Following that:

a) Work with them to get citizenship of these countries and then leave them as a headache for each of these nations.
b) Encourage them to sponsor their fellow muslim family members to these nations.

This immigration program can be justified as an action taken in light of Sachar committee report. :)


2) Open a conduit that dumps some IMs into jihadi grounds of afghanistan, iraq etc. This option will work good for crazy type IMs returning from gulf countries. But as a precaution it will be better to send them to these places from gulf directly rather than allowing them to stay in india for significant amount of time and then going there.


3) Send some to Guantanamo bay. Use the money we get in return to fund activities mentioned in point 1, 2, 4.


4) Send shia IMs to help their brothers in land of pure against sunnis/pakjabis. Make sure they never return. If they try to comeback treat them on border just like it happens in Kabul Express.


5) Attempt to brainwash part of IM such that influence of religion on them is diluted beyond recovery. Do a Macaulay on them and gladly accept them into our society.



I think this will make for a good beginning to clear up their numbers w/o involving bloodshed on our soil.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Prem wrote:Shaurya, there is no need for mini Mahabharat . The question of Islamism should have been settled in 47 like it did in Punjab. Yes, the price was paid in blood by Punjabis but it was worthwhile.
Then by default, you are saying that loosing of territory of our nation and the creation of stronger state based enemies is an acceptable price to pay.
It is because of this willingness to pay price keep Bakisatani
sleepless.
Who is keeping whom sleepless, will be quite evident, if you look at the past 60 years and answer, how many attempts were made by India to capture back its sovereign territory?
We have few more decades to control the disease and eventually cure our body politic.
For start , leftists need to go and the next general election will play very crucial role in determining the the right Qibla of Dharmic India .
Do not expect any magic solution from an election. Also, there are actions one has to take in years and decades to come but to settle this issue, will take, something in order of a century, if not more and I am not talking only about the issues in the sovereign territory of India, for the issues are linked with our neighbors and the wider Islamic world. I do not expect a lasting settlement to my satisfaction, in my life time. Better to prepare and act, with that reality in mind.

Prem - Looking at your other posts, I feel compelled to say a few things.

1. The partition of India was a loss with no resultant lasting benefits
2. This partition has only resulted in creating a more stronger enemy, one with nuclear weapons and a place for outside powers to meddle in the region
3. A further territorial loss and/or a continued long term dhimmified state of India, would be lethal to the idea of India. It will be similar to a Priviraj ignoring the enemy on the borders and let them gain strength to eventually finish us.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

surinder wrote:
shiv wrote:I posted a reply to this online:
Shiv, I noticed that in your response to the article on the outlook site, you seemed tame and held-back. I saw none of the pointed and sharp arguments which you use here on BRF with devastating accuracy. I hope you do not mind my opinion, for I just thought I'd share what I thought.
No offence taken. Your observation is valid. Experience teaches me that when dealing with dhimmedia it is better to water down vehemence. When you hit them with the truth they get angry. In the case of media editors, anger means your view does not get published.

It is better to have something seen rather than nothing. I try to point that out to people who post on BRF. But some people never learn and get themselves banned when a softly approach would have kept their views in the picture..
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Rudradev wrote:
Final score is STILL Islamists 500, Former Dhimmis 0. Admittedly better than 500/-500 which is the situation until now. However, what is the situation in which Islamists take a hit of negative points? .
Good observation Rudradev and I believe this reflects the truth

In India the debate leaves out the Muslims altogether and they lead their lives almost on a different plane. The debate is between dhimmis (psecs) and former dhimmis, with the dhimmis (psec) serving as a buffer area between Muslims and modernity. The majority of dhimmis catch the golf ball played by Muslims and place it at a spot that is convenient for the Muslims next stroke. Dhimmis also catch the golf ball hit by the former dhimmis and place it at a spot that does not inconvenience the Islamists.

We need to get our debate right with dhimmis first and we need to score higher. When dhimmis see less threat from former dhimmis they are more likely to move that way. getting them to stop interfering with the Islamist ball favorably is a step that needs to be planned and executed carefully.

Anyhow - I will write the Dr Jekyll-Mr Hyde argument I had in my mind in the form of a story - the Great Hindu debate.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

The Great Hindu debate

Post by shiv »

The Great Hindu debate

This is the transcript of  the Great Hindu debate held on the 31st of November 2007 . The debaters were Dr. Sekoo, Lecturer in Secularism, JNU, and Mr. Hindoo, Professor of Hindu Fundamentalism, Ayodhya University.
Dr Sekoo (S): There is a systematic demonization of Muslims by people such as yourself. There is a politically motivated plan to declare Muslims as untouchable by the BJP-VHP-RSS troika and you are flying their flag.

Mr.Hindoo(H): I deny that there is any deliberate demonization. Demonization is an interesting word. Why would Hindus want to demonize Muslims? There can be only two possible reasons. The first is that Hindus are naturally bigoted. The second reason is that Hindus have genuinely had reason to fear Muslims and see them as demons, hence demonization

S: Thank you. I quote your words, not mine. "Hindus are naturally bigoted" That is true isn't it? At least for some of your ilk?

H: Well that is an accusation that Muslims have made about Hindus and you appear to agree with that. If you consider what Islam says about how unbelievers (non Muslims) should be treated, you can say that Muslims are bigots too. Is it OK then for you to take the side of one bigoted party and accuse another party of bigotry? That is, after all, exactly what you are doing.  If there is any demonization of Muslims today it is related to violence from Islam. A thousand years ago, tens of thousands of Hindus were killed and thousands of Hindu temples were destroyed by invading Islamic forces. And the violence still continues. We still have violence in the name of Islam. A recent study showed that apart from Iraq, India has suffered the maximum number of terrorist deaths, and most of them due to Islamist terrorism.

S: I don't believe these fairy tales about temple destruction and killing of Hindus a thousand years ago. That is just another excuse for Islamophobia and a lame one at that. Even if some killing and destruction occurred 1000 years ago I am sure that it was done by both sides. In any case, why should Muslims today be blamed for that? Do you know that Muslims today have the lowest levels of literacy among minorities? They have the highest unemployment. They do not have proportional representation in government or the security forces, and you want to push them down further with your wild accusations? How much more nasty can anyone get?

H: Well just because you choose not to believe documented history, some of it in Islamic records detailing killing and temple destruction, it does not mean that the events did not occur.

You speak of Muslim literacy. isn't that their own fault? They prefer to send their children to madrassas rather than schools. I spoke to a social worker who worked in a Muslim community. He spoke of their great reluctance to send girls to school. Is it any wonder Muslims dont get jobs? Even the SCs and STs who wore in a far worse state are now doing better than Muslims.

S: The SCs and STs are not doing so well, and even if they are doing better than Muslims it is because Muslims have been denied the reservation that SCs and STs get.

H: After all Hindus were blamed for keeping the SCs and STs down in a caste hierarchy. Muslims, we are told, are totally egalitarian. No caste. So SCs and STs are a Hindu problem, and Hindus therefore had to take the responsibility to improve their lot. Why cant Muslims do better? It is not as though anyone is stopping them, they have all sorts of privileges of the type they wanted. They have their own personal law. They are allowed four wives in India, and the taxpayer bears the burden for Muslims annual Haj pilgrimage to Mecca.  I want to visit a Hindu temple in Bali. Will the government subsidize my trip?

S: But Hindus have their own personal laws too and I think some Hindu laws tell them to demonize Muslims. You still have not answered why Muslims today should be made to suffer just because you accuse their ancestors with cooked up stories of violence.

H: Please don't say those stories are cooked up. There are records. But I was trying to point out that Muslims were violent then and they are still violent now, as you can see from modern day records of terrorism that you cannot erase or dismiss as easily as you choose to dismiss documented history.

S: Why are you blaming only Muslims for terrorism? We see terrorism from so many groups, not just Muslims. The LTTE, Naxalite terrorism, insurgents in the North East. Why is it that you specifically want to pick on Muslims?

H: India has many problems. One of those problems is Islamist terrorism perpetrated by some Muslims. Just because there are other non Islamic terrorist groups does not mean that Islamist terrorism can somehow be hidden away in the crowd of terrorists and its existence denied. We have hundreds of people being killed in India every year by terrorists acting in the name of Islam. Groups like the Lashkar e Tayeba, Jaish e Mohammad, Harkat ul Mujahideen and the Harkat ul Jihad Islami base their ideology on Islam and conduct their operations for Islamic causes. Those who are caught are all Muslims. This is Islamist terrorism and denying that is unconvincing.

S: OK. But why blame the vast majority of innocent Muslims for the actions of a few misguided people who are not even true Muslims?

H: That is an interesting question. No we must not blame the vast majority who are innocent Muslims. But it is also wrong to turn away from reality. When you have self-confessed Islamic terrorist groups conducting terror attacks it is stupidity to try and deflect the blame by saying that the terrorists are not true Muslims. True or not they are Muslims alright. On another level, the Muslim community in India finds it easy to whip up a frenzied crowd for all sorts of Islamic causes outside India. We saw huge demonstrations, death threats and offers of bounty on the head of some Danish cartoonist. More recently we have witnessed a big hue and cry about Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen. Why do I not see Indian Muslims whip up frenzied crowds against Islamist terrorism?

S: What good would it do to whip up a crowd? That would not stop terrorism. Muslims are just expressing the sentiments they feel and it is a free country.

H: Exactly. That is why I am expressing the sentiments I feel in this free country. Muslims do not show the same fervor opposing Islamist terrorism in India as they do about Islamic causes outside India. And this is a Muslim community that gets more sops in India than Muslims get in any other country.

S: It is all very well to keep rehashing the same old bilge, but tell me why should all Muslims be blamed for the actions of a few?

H: OK, you say that many should not take the rap for the actions of a few. Then how do you explain the following? Take a look at this poster. It was put up in public places. An Islamic group in India says that Anti Muslim riots in Mumbai and Coimbatore led to bomb blasts. More recently, multiple bomb blasts occurred in the courts of Lucknow and Varanasi. The reason for those blasts was stated as an attack against all lawyers just because because some lawyers had refused to represent accused Islamist terrorists who were in custody, and because of that someone else was bombed.  In all these cases, the people responsible for the anti-Muslim riots and the allegedly guilty lawyers were blamed, but retribution was inflicted on innocent people belonging to a group that was identified as a guilty group. Are saying that it is OK for Muslim terrorists to perform a punitive retaliatory killing of innocent and uninvolved people of a group identified as guilty, but I should not blame all Muslims as a group for Islamist terror attacks?

S: Yes. That is what I am saying. Let the law take its course. Do not apply collective guilt on all Muslims and hold them collectively responsible.

H: Let the law take its course? How right you are. Except that you do not seem to recognize which law is taking its course here. Sharia or Islamic law allows the application of collective guilt and punishment of a group for the crime of an individual from that group. Such crimes are described in sharia as qesas crimes. That is why innocent Mumbai people are bombed for anti-Muslim riots. That is why innocent lawyers and bystanders were bombed for the presumed guilt of some lawyers. Allowing and accepting such eye for an eye or tit for tat group punishment by Muslim terrorists is accepting sharia, and if we apply sharia we get some interesting conclusions. According to a system that allows punishment of a group for guilt of a small segment of that group, it can be said that the killing of hundreds of Muslims in Gujarat was a perfectly just and acceptable act in retribution for the killing of Hindus in a train. No need to accuse or blame anyone. By Islamic law it is just and we seem to accept and allow the application of sharia in India. If retribution by Muslim groups against innocents is accepted as a natural consequence of the action of Hindus, retaliatory killing by Hindus should surely be equally acceptable. Why the double standards? We have sharia in action. Surely that can't be bad?

S: Sir. I end the debate here. I refuse to speak to a person such as yourself.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Post by surinder »

shiv wrote:
surinder wrote: Shiv, I noticed that in your response to the article on the outlook site, you seemed tame and held-back. I saw none of the pointed and sharp arguments which you use here on BRF with devastating accuracy. I hope you do not mind my opinion, for I just thought I'd share what I thought.
No offence taken. Your observation is valid. Experience teaches me that when dealing with dhimmedia it is better to water down vehemence. When you hit them with the truth they get angry. In the case of media editors, anger means your view does not get published.

It is better to have something seen rather than nothing. I try to point that out to people who post on BRF. But some people never learn and get themselves banned when a softly approach would have kept their views in the picture..
I aggree with you that going overboard does not help. But sometimes one has to take a aim at some and it has to be deadly accurate. Maybe just a little bit. Something that will destroy the argument. Sometimes the best way is to use the arguments of the original argumentor to entangle him in own rope. And you did that.

While we are on that topic, I would ask you to write a one mega article on Islamism. You have lead that discussion for quite some time and hae plumbed the phenomena to its full depth. You must consolidate all that and lay it out in an article form. Your article is basically all in there in all the threads in terms of your posts. It must have a section on my favorite part of it: TSOF (Torn Shirt Open Fly). You have expounded many gems they need to be captured.
Locked