Tackling Islamic Extremism in India

surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Postby surinder » 06 Dec 2007 08:18

I want to make a contribution on the Islamism topic with a acronym:

PBUH = Permanent Bile Upon Hindusm,
PBUH = Permanent Bile Upon Humanity

(I read the second one somewhere ... first one is my creation).

Another one is:

Britain = United Thiefdom

surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: The Great Hindu debate

Postby surinder » 06 Dec 2007 08:22

shiv wrote:The Great Hindu debate

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.


I am wondering anyone could provide me some idea about collective punishments in Islam. Either from Quran, Hadiths, or the traditions or the practices of Islam. Some link would help.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2155
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Postby merlin » 06 Dec 2007 08:31

Excellent post Shiv (the dialogue). I can picturize Barkha Dutt and Modi as the two people involved in the dialogue.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5200
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: The Great Hindu debate

Postby ShauryaT » 06 Dec 2007 08:36

surinder wrote:
shiv wrote:The Great Hindu debate

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.


I am wondering anyone could provide me some idea about collective punishments in Islam. Either from Quran, Hadiths, or the traditions or the practices of Islam. Some link would help.
Bin Laden gives us an example of early Islamic history in his lengthy 1996 fatwa (point no. seven, and scroll a long way down past that point). He refers to the seventh—century Jewish tribe of Qaynuqa who lived in Medina with Muhammad the Prophet. The terrorist draws inspiration from Muhammad's expulsion of these Jews just for a petty trick done by a Qaynuqa Jew. He pinned a Muslim woman's skirt to a nail, and when she stood up, the skirt stayed down. A fight erupted and murders ensued. For that, Muhammad expelled the entire tribe. Therefore, goes the thinking, bin Laden is justified in hating the Jews because they are troublemakers.

True or not, if this is the belief, about what Mohammed did then, you can safely conclude, you will find dozens of such examples all over from Islamic history.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: The Great Hindu debate

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2007 09:15

surinder wrote:
shiv wrote:The Great Hindu debate

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.


I am wondering anyone could provide me some idea about collective punishments in Islam. Either from Quran, Hadiths, or the traditions or the practices of Islam. Some link would help.


Surinder, this link exactly explains the link between Qesas and collective guilt/punishment

http://www.renaissance.com.pk/sepisla93.html
Intentional Murder About the first type, as far as murdering someone is concerned, the Quran says that it is a heinous crime and murdering a single person is like murdering the whole mankind and saving a single person is like saving the whole mankind. The Quran says:
"He who killed a human being without the latter being guilty of killing another or of spreading disorder in the land should be looked upon as if he had killed mankind altogether, and he who saved a human being should be regarded as though he saved all mankind." (5:32)
Furthermore, the Quran says that a person who commits such a grave offence, particularly against a Muslim, shall face the eternal punishment of Hell:
"And he who intentionally killed a believer, his reward is Hell. He shall abide therein forever and the wrath and the curse of God are upon him. He has prepared for him a dreadful doom." (4:93)
Consequently, the duties and responsibilities which this type of murder imposes on us, as Muslims, can be summed up in the following words of my mentor, Imam Amin Ahsan Islahi:
"Firstly, every such occurence should create a tumult and commotion in the nation. Until and unless Qisaas is taken from the criminal responsible for it, everyone should feel that he no longer has the protection of the law he formerly had. The law is the protector of all and if it has been violated, a single person has just not been slayed, but the lives of all the persons are in danger.
Secondly, to search for the murderer is not just the responsibility of the heirs of the murdered person, but of the whole nation as it is not that only one life has not been taken---rather all the lives have been taken.
Thirdly, if a person sees someone in danger, he should not ignore the situation by thinking that he is interfering in someone's affair; rather he should defend and protect him as much as he can, even if he has to endure difficulties; for a person who defends an aggrieved and oppressed person, in fact, defends humanity of which he himself is a part.
Fourthly, a person who hides someone's murder, bears false evidence in favour of the murderer or stands surety for him, or gives refuge to him or legally pleads for him, or intentionally excuses him, in fact, does so for the murder of his ownself, his father, his brother, and his son because the murderer of one is the murderer of all.

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

Postby Johann » 06 Dec 2007 09:41

shiv wrote:Britain fostered its own agenda to "educate Indians to appreciate British goods" as Macaulay intended. The education of Indians started with the creation of Bengali babus. The English education and Macaulay-ization was taken up with enthusiasm by some Indians because it offerred a route of economic release for them. Macaulay-ization as we know was not taken up with the same gusto by Muslims who tended to go towards Madrassa education. This led to a split between Hindus and Muslims because dhimmi former subjects of Muslims were getting empowered, while the act of Macaulayization was seen as a threat to Islam. Hindus, who were already dhimmified, did not see much of a threat to Hinduism by Macaulayization, as their faith was already crushed in their dhimmi minds.

However the need to get rid of the British did unite Hindus and Muslims for a bit. Hindu dhimmitude no doubt assisted in maintaining communication and trust while there was cooperation, but the increasing Macaulayization and power of Hindus was noted with alarm by some Islamists. After all, "Macaulayization" was not just creation of a class of Britain lovers. It was also the creation of borrowed British institutions, particularly secular rule of law and democracy with elections that would ensure that any majority bloc would win. When independence became a distinct possibility, these Islamists realised that their old power - the old "Muslim ruler-Hindu dhimmi subject" would be gone. That was unacceptable and the idea of Pakistan was born from this.

The important point to note here is that Muslim-Hindu cooperation during independence revolved around the old ruler-dhimmi relationships built up during the earlier Islamic era. This old ruler-dhimmi cooperation was a useful unifier in British rule, but the Macaulayization of Hindus was advanced enough to favor British style democracy and government and not a return to the old Islamic state. In fact even the existing Hindu Kings in India opted for democracy and to join the Indian union.

The most rabid Islamic elite ran off to Pakistan but the old Islamic power base in many India states remained. Also remaining was a natural and deep dhimmitude of most Hindus. It was this dhimmitude that probably aided harmony and the development of early post independence India, while commitment to Macaulayization stabilized the democratic system.

Pakistan was Islamist from the word go. they had no need for British democracy and values. And any remaining kafirs in Pakistan were treated just like Islam treats kafirs.


1857 was an absolute cataclysm for the Muslims of Ganjetic India.

They launched a divisive and savage jihad against the Nazrani/Angrezi in the name of Deen-e-Islam and the Padishah, failed, and were paid back with only slightly less savagery in the same currency they had attempted to use.

They suffered death and socio-economic destruction on a scale few understand today. No Muslim male either of a certain class, or of a certain age within 50 miles of a city that had massacred its European population was safe. Movable goods were carried off as reward to loyal Indian troops (mostly Sikhs), and seized properties and titles were auctioned off, mostly to better-off local Hindus.

The eucated/wealthy Muslim of North India used the paradigm they were familar with to cope with the situation, and turned themselves in to dhimmis of Raj, while in turn maintaining Hindu dhimmitude to themselves.

That was when a *Muslim* 'Macaulayite' class fathered by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan emerged, which eventually came to include many of the wealthiest Muslim families in India.

The Muslim of India had never exercised dhimmitude over the Angrezi, so his/her conquest was tolerable, so long as the existing order underneath did not change.

But once again Muslims looking at society through the prism of dhimmitude could not imagine a plural society post-independence. *Someone* was going to be master, and *someone* was going to be a dhimmi.

The Pakistan movement was largely financed and supported by these 'Macaulayite' families - determined to find a space where they could continue to exercise dhimmitude over non-Muslims of the subcontinent.

After 1857 the old fashioned dominant Islam went in to seclusion in marginal places like Deoband, and re-emerged in the new Pakistan, determined to smash Muslim dhimmitude towards the West.

Bhutto (a 'macaulayite' but not a dhimmi) was the first Pakistani leader to do that, and Zia continued. Musharraf, with his reversal of September 13th ('they will bomb us back to the stone age', perhaps an echo of the awful reprisals that followed 1857) is a step backwards.

As long as dhimmitude/dominance rather than pluralism is the only paradigm that the majority of the Muslim world can handle, the Muslim world must be prepared for the possibility that it is they who might end up living in dhimmitude.

Non-Muslim societies can not be counted on to indefinitely renounce the option of compelling Muslim dhimmitude.

But there's no doubt that Non-Muslim societies who value pluralism would be forced to wound themselves in the process of adopting such a model. It is an awful, awful choice, one that we should never relish.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2007 13:45

Johann wrote:
The eucated/wealthy Muslim of North India used the paradigm they were familar with to cope with the situation, and turned themselves in to dhimmis of Raj, while in turn maintaining Hindu dhimmitude to themselves.

That was when a *Muslim* 'Macaulayite' class fathered by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan emerged, which eventually came to include many of the wealthiest Muslim families in India.

The Muslim of India had never exercised dhimmitude over the Angrezi, so his/her conquest was tolerable, so long as the existing order underneath did not change.

But once again Muslims looking at society through the prism of dhimmitude could not imagine a plural society post-independence. *Someone* was going to be master, and *someone* was going to be a dhimmi.

The Pakistan movement was largely financed and supported by these 'Macaulayite' families - determined to find a space where they could continue to exercise dhimmitude over non-Muslims of the subcontinent.

After 1857 the old fashioned dominant Islam went in to seclusion in marginal places like Deoband, and re-emerged in the new Pakistan, determined to smash Muslim dhimmitude towards the West.


Excellent post Johann. You have given a credible explanation for the introduction of a new entity - the Muslim Macaulayite.

Jinnah was obviously one - but a dhimmi to teh Brits too - because he knew which side is bread was buttered.

And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, removing the Macaulayite from the Muslim does not reveal dhimmitude as in the Hindus. It reveals radical islam.

I wonder if this is why so many Muslims from India are reported to turn fundoo when they go abroad. They go and get what they wanted, but do not get emotional and family support in the West and the sheen of Macaulay goes, exposing only Islam underneath and a hatred and contempt for the Hindu back home.

Just speculatin..

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Postby harbans » 06 Dec 2007 14:17

Excellent post Johann!

"He who killed a human being without the latter being guilty of killing another or of spreading disorder in the land should be looked upon as if he had killed mankind altogether, and he who saved a human being should be regarded as though he saved all mankind." (5:32)


This verse forms an important part of Taqqiya for Islam. IF you read the actual verse in the Koran it clearly shows that this is what Allah ordained for the Jews.


005.032
YUSUFALI: On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

PICKTHAL: For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

SHAKIR: For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.



http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html

This was an old jewish saying that the Koran quotes. It's really not applicable to Muslims. But this verse in it's clipped version is used as part of Taqqiya.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2007 14:23

One fallout on my point of view after these detailed dissections is that I am increasingly seeing the question of Islamic fundamentalism in India as a problem that revolves around Hindus and their actions, and the solution is at least partially going to have to come from an intra Hindu debate.

With 85% Hindus, Muslims could easily be overwhelmed, covered up and discounted and they are in most ways.

It is Hindu attitudes towards Muslims that occupy a lot of bandwidth and have an inhibitory or facilitatory effect on Islamist behavior.

It may turn out that it is less important to concentrate on Muslim activities - because Muslim behavior is predictable and set in stone. But inhibition of undesirable Muslim behavior, and facilitation of desirable Muslim behavior may rest with the attitudes of Hindus.

Modulation of Hindu attitudes and behavior might be the key to squeezing the best out of Indian Muslims, while scrubbing the worst from them.

Indian Hindu behavior is defined by the vast majority of Hindus. The vast majority of Hindus fall into the following 3 categories
1) psec,
2) dhimmi,
3) Macaulayite "ashamed of self" Hindus.

Anyone who falls out of these 3 groups is a person who has erased Macaulay to a small extent and is beginning to deny dhimmitude. He is therefore a threat to all 3 groups above and is called a "resurgent, fundamentalist" Hindu.

To the psec: this "former dhimmi" resurgent Hindu will seek revenge on Muslims and to them he appears suicidal. "He will destroy our dear India!"

To the dhimmi the fear is that a former dhimmi will invite the wrath of Islam and provoke violent Muslims who should be left alone

To the Macaulayite self hater: This new group is an embarrasment.

When you have a nation that is dominated by psecs, dhimmis and Macaulayites, and all of them view you with suspicion, it is an own goal to piss them off. They are in a majority and they will oppose everything you say or do even when you are right.

I believe this is what we are seeing in India today. Islamic extremism is only the icing on the cake that is baked by the combination of people who fear what lies beneath Macaulay and dhimmitude. It is up to the people who are former dhimmis to show that they are not nation destroyers but nation builders. That can be done if their behavior is geared towards nation consolidation rather than nation fractionation.

Are former dhimmis nation builders or nation destroyers? What do these people seek in the nation that can be defined as building rather than destroying?

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9676
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Postby Aditya_V » 06 Dec 2007 14:55

Shiv , I think Hindus are more like 79% of India's population with Muslims 15% and Chirstians , Sikhs and others forming 6%.

nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Postby nkumar » 06 Dec 2007 15:05

shiv wrote:Indian Hindu behavior is defined by the vast majority of Hindus. The vast majority of Hindus fall into the following 3 categories
1) psec,
2) dhimmi,
3) Macaulayite "ashamed of self" Hindus.

Anyone who falls out of these 3 groups is a person who has erased Macaulay to a small extent and is beginning to deny dhimmitude. He is therefore a threat to all 3 groups above and is called a "resurgent, fundamentalist" Hindu.

To the psec: this "former dhimmi" resurgent Hindu will seek revenge on Muslims and to them he appears suicidal. "He will destroy our dear India!"

To the dhimmi the fear is that a former dhimmi will invite the wrath of Islam and provoke violent Muslims who should be left alone

To the Macaulayite self hater: This new group is an embarrasment.


Very concise and precise view of today's reality. Very well put.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2007 16:15

Aditya_V wrote:Shiv , I think Hindus are more like 79% of India's population with Muslims 15% and Chirstians , Sikhs and others forming 6%.


I stand corrected. Nevertheless, there are Hindu groups for whom Islamist behavior and even violence is justified and justifiable rather than he "former dhimmi" Hindu groups who oppose that. Let me call these groups the "Holy Hindu Trinity" of Psec, dhimmi and Macaulayite"

Time and time again we see a complete paralysis of thought among these people. Typically the paralysis of thought revolves around the deepest stresses in society - such as riots or terrorism.

Unfortunately their greatest fears lead them to act in a manner that might in fact make their greatest fears come true.

In terms of Islamist extremism, the fear is that resurgent Hindu thought will seek wipe out Muslims and seek a population exchange or erasure of 150 million Muslims. They voice these fears by making comparisons with Hitler, and speaking of fascism. In fact a few opinions expressed in this thread are of the sort that evoke the deepest fears among the Holy Hindu Trinity. Talk of a population exchange, pointing Muslims towards Pakistan etc cause this fear. This fear is addressed andassuaged by the Holy trinity by ensuring the health and survival of traditional and unchanging dar ul Islam islands to the extent that Islamic violence has a definite sanctuary in India. And when that violence occurs, it is justified as a reaction to the nation-killing intent of the former dhimmis.

Unfortunately - the blowback I see to this was first seen at Godhra and its aftermath. Sooner or later, given enough provocation, the aftermath of Godhra will get repeated.

I believe there may be a way to check this. But it requires knocking sense into the holy Hindu Trinity and calming their fears and reassuring them that Hindus are not out to kill all Muslims. But Islamic extremism and terrorism has to be rooted out ruthlessly and without mercy with no sops or sympathy being given to Islamic extremists just because they are Muslims. Muslims really should not riot when this is done, but if they do they will only encourage and accelerate their own persecution.

If the Holy Hindu trinity continue to offer one sided justification for terrorism and "expected and natural retribution" to anti Muslim behavior, and act as if "Hindu extremism" was the trigger, the only answer will have to be a similar, tit for tat, "expected and natural" punishment of Muslims as a group. That is what the aftermath of Godhra was. that is the language that Modi speaks and it will not end with Modi. It will be picked up by someone else.

satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Postby satyarthi » 06 Dec 2007 17:03

shiv wrote: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.
-----------
When you have a nation that is dominated by psecs, dhimmis and Macaulayites, and all of them view you with suspicion, it is an own goal to piss them off. They are in a majority and they will oppose everything you say or do even when you are right.

Well, this itself is a dhimmi and Gandhian approach.

If a small hawkish group of islamists can create such a large and compliant group of hindu cheerleaders for Islam, then it implies that these dhimmis are extremely susceptible to the threat of violence, rather than reason or pleadings.

Why wouldn't a small hawkish hindu group that targets specifically these violence abhorring dhimmis be as successful in turning them to their side as hawkish muslims have been?

That may explain why these dhimmified hindus are so paranoid about the bajrang dals and Modis? May be it is not the hindutva group's claimed anti-muslim agenda that exercises the dhimmi subconscious as much, but rather a future where these hindutva groups turn against the dhimmies.

If this theory is correct, we may expect a rapid depletion in the ranks of dhimmis, once the hawkish hindu groups that don't shy away from chastising the dhimmi hindus, gain a certain critical foothold.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Dec 2007 17:16

satyarthi wrote:Well, this itself is a dhimmi and Gandhian approach.

If a small hawkish group of islamists can create such a large and compliant group of hindu cheerleaders for Islam, then it implies that these dhimmis are extremely susceptible to the threat of violence, rather than reason or pleadings.
.


Sahi hai (correct); I agree. I dont think Dhimmi populace will be ever won over by "logic" or "persuasion". Meanwhile; as we wait for them to see the light; we continue losing to Islamists (as per Rudradev's analsyis of Shiv's model). Does not seem like the way to go.

Of course in the past the problem was that non-dhimmi population was faced with the power of the British infulence in India; this led to a interesting game where the non-Dhimmis either cooperated with the British to achieve their ends or got it in the mush from both forces.

However what is stopping the hawks now?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It just occured to me; Dr Shiv is trying to build a Satyagrha against the Islamism in India; he realizes; just like Gandhijee did that there would never be enough true Hindu hawks to do what needs to be really done; so the next best approach.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 06 Dec 2007 17:22

All this talk of muslim this and muslim that only serves to veil the fact that there is one group of people who take a very interested POV in this conflict - the Christian right wing in India. I was hoping that someone would mention their role in the Hindu muslim divide, but since no one has, I will take it up.

Two parts of the Hindu Holy Trinity that mentions are really Hindus brainwashed into behaving and thinking like Christians. These groups are P-Secs and Macaulites. Properly speaking, these people are not Hindus, but Pseudo-Christians.

The interest of the Evanjehadis in the Hindu Muslim conflict is that it gets Hindus to focus on Muslim violence, and Christians can go their merry way, harvesting Hindu souls. It also allows them to paint themselves as the good guys by default.

The influence of these Evanjehadis can most strongly felt in the media. I still remember one image of Burkha Dutt, showing the torn pages of Quran DURING THE GUJRAT RIOTS. I mean, what was that female thinking? She was trying to provoke the muslims into fighting more. I also believe that one of the reasons that the secular media is angry with N Modi is because he has curtailed Chritian activities in the tribal areas. They only use the muslims issues to bash Modi, but their real anger is due to his anti-Christian activities. And perhaps that is also the reason Modi was denied a visa to the US.


Folks, it is one thing to focus on the wrong muslims have, and quite another not to see another group doing the same, but from the shadows. Perhaps shiv will do a three way gaming on this problem some day. Think of the Hindu Muslim conflict as a sub game that the Christians are playing against the Hindus - then your eyes will pop out.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Dec 2007 17:24

abcc apologies...

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2007 17:31

abhischekcc wrote: Perhaps shiv will do a three way gaming on this problem some day. Think of the Hindu Muslim conflict as a sub game that the Christians are playing against the Hindus - then your eyes will pop out.


No. No three way gaming until the two way equations become muddled by imponderable "external forces" ("dark matter", "aether") that need an alternative explanation. One of those alternative explanations will have to be this.

I believe it is important not to complicate an already complex issue too much until simpler theories are knocked cold by reasoned opinions and arguments from various people creating the widespread acceptance of the need to introduce another factor.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 06 Dec 2007 17:38

Hi Sanku,

Hey no problem. You were misses though. Raj was also not around.

Heh heh, I hope your SHQ did not have anything to do with your disappearance :P

indygill
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 24 Aug 2007 17:53

Postby indygill » 06 Dec 2007 17:50

We need to very careful with this number game. In todays world its all about numbers.

There is lot of vested interest involved in propagating the decline in Hindu Population. It is spearheaded by Leftists and communists. They will brain wash you into believing that Hindus are declining in India. Next comes the Christian Missionaries they have to propagate the decline to satisfy their funders in west. And last is Islam they really are not in the number game because it is inherited in them to keep producing. As such growth in India only is not their only objective. Their ideology in terms of population is pan-islamic they want to surpass Christianity in terms of population worldwide.

In short declining Hindu Population is most beneficial (in Indian context) to Leftists and communists and than to Christian Missionaries.

*** question … Leftists and Communists or Atheists do they check their religion as Hindu in census or other?????? Answer to this will change the whole scenario !!!!!!!!

If they check themselves as Hindus than it is a Big Issus. And we really need to be worried.

2001 census Hindu Population was 827,578,868 out of total population of 1,028,610,328 that makes it around 81 %

During 1961 census Hindus were 366,527,000 out of total Pop. Of 439,235,000

During 1961 census Muslims were 46,941,000 out of total Pop. Of 439,235,000

As per 2001 census Muslims were 138,188,000 out of 1,028,610,328 that makes them around 13.8%.

At same time in last two decade we cannot ignore the growth rate 2 other religions Christianity and Buddhism

1981 census Christains were 16,165,000 and as 2001 census they were 24,080,000

1981 census Buddhists were 4,720,000 and 2001 census they were 7,955,000

These numbers could be even higher for these two religions because conversions are to be registered in lots of places they do not register

In terms of islam we need worry about illegal muslim migration from bangladesh in some circles it is estimated to be around 30-40 million
Last edited by indygill on 06 Dec 2007 18:10, edited 2 times in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2007 18:00

Sanku wrote:It just occured to me; Dr Shiv is trying to build a Satyagrha against the Islamism in India; he realizes; just like Gandhijee did that there would never be enough true Hindu hawks to do what needs to be really done; so the next best approach.


To quote just one line from Jethro Tull's "Thick as a Brick"
Your sperm's in the gutter - your love's in the sink.


Please pardon my French. but the problem as I see it is the continuous "Shagging into the sink" of former dhimmis imagining (Like Pakis thought they would walk into Delhi sometime after 1947) that some major revolution can occur soon.

Former dhimmis should know not to think like a Paki and imagine the size of one's d*ck as being better than it actually is.

They (we?) are startng with a handicap. The Holy Hindu trinity are ALREADY afraid of upsettin Muslims. They know what to expect from dhimmitude and are perfectly comfortable with that. The ruler-dhimmi relationship built up over centuries had stabilised and was actually useful in driving he Brits away. Apart from a few ch**ths who ran to Pakistan, there was glorious harmony in secularism of the "ruler-dhimmi" variety. Especially in a system like India where the rulers are all under control of Mullahs and the Mullahs are chamchas of the dhimmis who have used their Macaulay given power to rule. Anyone who wants to change anything has to fight the vast mass made up of the Holy Hindu trinity first. Neither military nor electoral victory is likely when there is talk of revolution.

There is fear of major change and it will not be allowed. You cannot touch Islamists without getting past the HH Trinity, and you will not defeat them easily. You may have balls, but they have some real strength.

The net effect is when former dhimmis try to use hawks to do anything, they score more and more and more own goals. The sperms go down the drain.

In fact i did state that Moorthy Muthusamy (apologies if I am wrong here) may be ahead of his time. He has previously advocated action that got him banned (or hounded out) from here - so radical was his solution.

Only if hawks bring down the Indian constitution and destroy India as a nation state will it be possible for former dhimmis to use hawk forces to do anything. There are, as Sanku says not enough Hindu hawks who are willing to bring down the Indian state. It is the only state we have and it must be treated with love, defective as it may be. It must not be given stupid jhapads by Hindus.

If a hawk solution was workable we would have seen the formation of hawk groups that are doing that. The reason that we see no such groups should be a lesson for us.

I personally do not see the bringing down of the Indian state as a desirable goal, and a lot of people who talk about radical solutions in their earnest former dhimmi patriotic fervor are actually inadvertently designing plans that will threaten the state and help every other country on earth that wants to do that. But I don't think that will happen easily - only more sperm will go down the gutter.

These are my opinions. I will expand and justify by and by as opinions are posted.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2007 18:27

satyarthi wrote:
If a small hawkish group of islamists can create such a large and compliant group of hindu cheerleaders for Islam, then it implies that these dhimmis are extremely susceptible to the threat of violence, rather than reason or pleadings.


With apologies - this is a gross misinterpretation of reality on the lines of Paki Genral Javed Nasir predicting in March 1999 that the Indian army would be incapable of a fight, or even Ayub Khan predicting that the Hindu will cower when struck at the right time and place.

Indian dhimmitude is a stable civilizational solution that has been arrived at in indian society after centuries. It certainly needs removal, but it will not be removed as easily as Pakis assumed it could be reimposed and accentuated by an attack or two.

It would be wise not to make Paki like assumptions about Hindu society. It may have faults you and I do not like, but it has survived because it has deep strengths. It will definitely be alive for centuries after you and I are dead, even if we are predicting its death today.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 06 Dec 2007 18:44

self del
Last edited by abhischekcc on 06 Dec 2007 18:46, edited 1 time in total.

indygill
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 24 Aug 2007 17:53

Postby indygill » 06 Dec 2007 18:45

Shiv wrote

If a hawk solution was workable we would have seen the formation of hawk groups that are doing that. The reason that we see no such groups should be a lesson for us.


Shiv you brought in a very good point. But Hawk Solution if given a chance would have worked. But did it ever evolve from infancy, it was simply subdued right in its conception. And sadly it was not done by Islamists but by our own fellow Hindus.

The process had started a long before independence during the independent movement itself.

Another way to look at it is that didn’t Gandhi colluded with British (Macaulists) to subdue the so called Hawks???? From Gandhis memoirs one can easily note his mistrust of Punjabis. He thought they were not good variables in his ideological equation because he perceived them inherently aggressive. Or Maybe Gandhi and congress were simply a suitable acceptable variables for the new world order equation as prescribed by "Macaulism".

The subduing of Hawks was institutionalized in Modern India. We should not forget that any person who attended a RSS meeting was never allowed to be part if any GOI official institution. The list can go on.

In such a repressive system (mind you rulers are fellow hindus of modern india not Islamists), the only option left for so called Hawks was to start a “Revolutionâ€

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2007 19:10

Nice insight Indygill, but I just want to comment on the quote below

indygill wrote:The process had started a long before independence during the independent movement itself.

Another way to look at it is that didn’t Gandhi colluded with British (Macaulists) to subdue the so called Hawks???? From Gandhis memoirs one can easily note his mistrust of Punjabis. He thought they were not good variables in his ideological equation because he perceived them inherently aggressive. Or Maybe Gandhi and congress were simply a suitable acceptable variables for the new world order equation as prescribed by "Macaulism".

The subduing of Hawks was institutionalized in Modern India. We should not forget that any person who attended a RSS meeting was never allowed to be part if any GOI official institution. The list can go on.


I agree with the content of the paragraphs, but there are two way to look at this, and each reveals a completely different meaning.

One interpretation is that Gandhi and the Macaulayite leaders of Congress somehow fiddled with the Brits and others to arrive at this clever sidelining of hawks.

The second interpretation is that the political leaders of the day developed the broadest possible consensus which pointed towards a solution without hawks.

But there is a third explanation. The hawk solution was always there and is still there. It was just used skilfully by Gandhi (who said "Either my solution, or let the hawks get you").

It is still used skillfully by some people. It is not the sword that counts but the skill with which it is wielded. Babri Masjid was a badly implemented hawk solution that only gave government for one term. The aftermath of Godhra was a more skilfully applied hawk solution. It longer term effects need to be seen yet.

Former dhimmis who want to use hawks because their use appears easy need to understand that hawks solutions need to be applied skilfully.

When we use "hawk-dove" models to explain current or past behaviour it is very easy because we are merely describing situations that worked best for hawks or for doves. We can say in situation X hawks won. Just because hawks won in situation x, it does not mean they can be applied ina situation that does not favor them.

The biggest mistake that is being made by some on this forum is the "Ling(am) worship" where Hindutva, BJP. Modi, Bajrang Dal etc are brave virile strong Hawks, and psecs MMS etc are weak impotent doves.

That is a gross mistake. Some actions that Gandhi used were hawk actions that won. Some were dove actions. Psecs of today are hawks when it comes to the way they handle former dhimmis. Imagined size of virility is different from effective size.

We must not confuse the usage of words like Hawk and Dove and apply them to identify individual people or groups. That way you only get GIGO.

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

Postby Johann » 06 Dec 2007 19:23

shiv wrote:
Johann wrote:
The eucated/wealthy Muslim of North India used the paradigm they were familar with to cope with the situation, and turned themselves in to dhimmis of Raj, while in turn maintaining Hindu dhimmitude to themselves.

That was when a *Muslim* 'Macaulayite' class fathered by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan emerged, which eventually came to include many of the wealthiest Muslim families in India.

The Muslim of India had never exercised dhimmitude over the Angrezi, so his/her conquest was tolerable, so long as the existing order underneath did not change.

But once again Muslims looking at society through the prism of dhimmitude could not imagine a plural society post-independence. *Someone* was going to be master, and *someone* was going to be a dhimmi.

The Pakistan movement was largely financed and supported by these 'Macaulayite' families - determined to find a space where they could continue to exercise dhimmitude over non-Muslims of the subcontinent.

After 1857 the old fashioned dominant Islam went in to seclusion in marginal places like Deoband, and re-emerged in the new Pakistan, determined to smash Muslim dhimmitude towards the West.


Excellent post Johann. You have given a credible explanation for the introduction of a new entity - the Muslim Macaulayite.

Jinnah was obviously one - but a dhimmi to teh Brits too - because he knew which side is bread was buttered.


Jinnah was certainly a 'macaulayite', but he was *not* a dhimmi, unlike every Pakistani leader between his death and ZA Bhutto.

Any member of the AIML who was also an active and important member of the INC up until 1928 was not a dhimmi to the Raj.

However British Jinnah was in his personal lifestyle, most of he was prickly and adversarial with the British. Even in 1946 Jinnah, not Nehru was the one making threats to the British, which is why Mountbatten got on well with Nehru, but terribly with Jinnah. His threat of jihad was seen as credible.

Jinnah and Bhutto's personal habits couldnt be more different from Zia, but they were similar in that although they were willing to work with the West, they did it when it made sense to them, and on their own terms.

On the other hand Ayub's biography was entitled "Friends not Masters" - a desperate desire to expunge the air of dhimmitude around the Pakistani relationship with the West.

Although Pakistan did not host permanent US military bases, or provide troops for Vietnam as the Americans had pressed for, played around with American enemies, etc, this had little to do with the Muslim Macaulayite ruling classes, and much more to with the old-fashioned Islamic consciousness of the Muslim masses and influential exceptions like ZA Bhutto.

And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, removing the Macaulayite from the Muslim does not reveal dhimmitude as in the Hindus. It reveals radical islam.

I wonder if this is why so many Muslims from India are reported to turn fundoo when they go abroad. They go and get what they wanted, but do not get emotional and family support in the West and the sheen of Macaulay goes, exposing only Islam underneath and a hatred and contempt for the Hindu back home.

Just speculatin..


I think that's quite true.

There is another element as well - Arabs in the West, outnumbered and on the defensive, treat Subcontinental Muslims with more respect than they ever do when they are in the Arab world, or for that matter even when they are in the Subcontinent.

Indian Muslims, like most Muslims around the world *want* to be accepted as a truly authentic part of the ummah, and when they feel that acceptance they will chose the Muslim diaspora over the Indian diaspora.

indygill
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 24 Aug 2007 17:53

Postby indygill » 06 Dec 2007 19:29

When we talk of Gandhi

Abhischekcc

brought in Leo Tolstoy in reference to Gandhi. Which is very important to understand Gandhi and Congress, Independence and Hindu Muslim relations

How many people know this guy was Gandhis mentor or Guru it was literally Tolstoy who told Gandhi what to do…..

Propaganda might say anything but are Non-violence, Social economy etc all Gandhis thoughts and brain child???? No they were never, they were all "white mans" ideas and as usual Hindus who could not resolve thier own issues looked at "outsiders" for resolve.

In short Gandhi himself was the biggest and smartest “Macaulistâ€
Last edited by indygill on 06 Dec 2007 20:07, edited 1 time in total.

satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Postby satyarthi » 06 Dec 2007 19:33

shiv wrote:That is a gross mistake. Some actions that Gandhi used were hawk actions that won. Some were dove actions. Psecs of today are hawks when it comes to the way they handle former dhimmis. Imagined size of virility is different from effective size.

So there are two kinds of hawk adversaries, Islamist hawks and Dhimmi-hawks.

Which hawk should be easier to tackle?

The groundswell during Babri and Godhra suggest that the hindu hawks are not small in number, and are a silent majority. Dhimmi-hawks are small in numbers but govern the limelight due to their hold on powerful positions in academia, media, politics etc, and hence they control the audible dialog, until all hell breaks loose. My personal experience in talking with ordinary folks far away from Bengal and Punjab regarding their stories during 1947, suggest that the general hindu polulace is quite hawkish towards Islamists, even away from the areas where major riots happened.

So the question is how many dhimmi-hawks are really there compared to islamist hawks? And how committed are they to their respective views? And which type of hawk has a lower buckling threshold?

My (unsubstantiated) view is that dhimmi hawks have a much lower buckling threshold as compared to the Islamist hawks, and they are also much smaller in absolute numbers.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2007 19:39

It is always a problem if you elevate someone to the level of God and then try to anoint him with human like weaknesses.

Gandhi had strengths and weaknesses and it is best to view him that way. We may accuse "other people" of elevating Gandhi to a God like status, but when people say "This should be done because gandhi did not do it" or "This should not be done because Gandhi did it" we are still giving him the status of God by saying "Do this in the name of God" or "Don't do this in the name of God'

What we do about Islamic extremism should not beviewed theorugh a Gandhi prism because any actions that we may want to take get clouded by respect or lack of respect for Gandhi.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2007 19:42

satyarthi wrote:
My (unsubstantiated) view is that dhimmi hawks have a much lower buckling threshold as compared to the Islamist hawks, and they are also much smaller in absolute numbers.


Your unsubstantiated view may be dead right but incomplete.

Their buckling threshold could be low for Muslims and high against former dhimmis. Their behavior clearly shows that and former dhimmis have no solution. Yet.

I am suggesting subterfuge.

indygill
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 24 Aug 2007 17:53

Postby indygill » 06 Dec 2007 19:50

What we do about Islamic extremism should not beviewed theorugh a Gandhi prism because any actions that we may want to take get clouded by respect or lack of respect for Gandhi.


As i mentioned before Gandhi was clueless when it came to that subject because both his Gurus especially Leo Tolstoy did not consider religion as a "factor" ever. Same is true for John Ruskin.

If Gandhi was really a great Indian Mahatma and as "original" thinker as he has always been propagated he would have known that religion and related conflicts, ideologies and convictions were all embedded in Indian society. India and its society were not the "product" of "industrial revolution" they were the product of 1000 yrs of "religious" proscecution, slavery and subjugation. "Industry" and Industrilist class etc were never a factor in Indian social and cultural conscious..........
Last edited by indygill on 06 Dec 2007 19:51, edited 1 time in total.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 06 Dec 2007 19:50

Interesting.

But dismissing the Modi phenomenon an extremity that isn't viable would underemphasize the fact that Moditva could actually be a viable alternative to the current setup while preserving India and the institutions of state (including the constitution, as it stands). Modi has smartly moved to appropriate the legacy of MKG as well and turned psec-dhimmi rage against him into a referendum on Moditva. A 'referendum', basically. Would a politician take such a gamble if the *majority* of yindoos (as shiv asserts) are either psecs or dhimmis or macaulayites? Unlikely, IMO. Time will soon bear out how that gamble turned.

The other explanation is that perhaps the aam gujju yindoo is different from the rest of the yindoo majority. OK. That I could buy. But whuddathunk it that a folk with all outward trappings of non-strength (vegetarianism, teetotlerism, guru-prem and bhakti-ism, business & money mindedness etc) would turn out to be India's first majority-non dhimmis, eh?

Note also, that Gujjus in places like bbay are using whatever tools they have locally available to resist the touch of izlam within their sphere of incluence. Housing societies cleverly ban 'non-vegetarians' from renting or buying space - rejecting all muzlims basically. There are other smaller things too at a local interaction level they do to minimize the influence of izlam in their homes and families. No?

Anyway, maybe I'm getting ahead of myself and events here. But Gujrat may actually pave the way forward for the rest of yindoo csociety to take a template of nationalistic non-dhimmitude from. Yiondoo majority is not necessarily perma-dhimmi. Its looking for a credible leader and a worklable template that it can hope to follow. MKG was one such for that time. But so was SC Bose.

JMTs etc.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 06 Dec 2007 19:58

indygill,
Very nice post on Gandhi and his influences. Guys, every one you needs to read his post ten times before you talk about Gandhi, satyagraha and Hinduism in the same breath again. Satyagraha is derived from a very ascetic form of Christianity - so extreme that Tolstoy had become an outcast in Russia when he adopted it. Even his wife left him at that point.

(I deleted my post before someone accused me of spreading libel/lies :) ).

Gandhi was not a Macaulite, he was an Eastoxicated person (as per Salman Rushdie's definition of the word, IIRC). But the point is well made. He could not understand Indian problems, because his solutions were not Indian. He spent his whole life fitting the solution to the problem. That is why he made bloopers like withdrawing the NC movement at its peak - just because a few policement were killed by freedom fighters. His quest for Hindu Muslim unity must also be seen in that light - as attempts to fashion a peace that no one wants, but him.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2007 20:00

vsudhir wrote: But Gujrat may actually pave the way forward for the rest of yindoo csociety to take a template of nationalistic non-dhimmitude from.


The "Gujarat model" of intense killing of involved and uninvolved Muslims will be the ONLY way forward if the Holy Hindu Trinity (psec, dhimmi + macaulay) do not realize that they cannot forever continue to insist on constitutional law for former dhimmis while they allow and justify tribal law, qisas type retribution by Islamist terror groups.

The Holy Hindu trinity have to learn that tribal law and eye for an eye is becoming easier and more justifiable because they choose to justify it by Muslim groups while being bitterly critical of Hindus.

However, the truth may be even dirtier than this - but I will reserve that for later when my thoughts are organized.

The Gujarat model is certainly one solution.

I would like to see the Government, media and prominent peaceniks and WKKs clearly stating that it is as unacceptable for Islamist groups to cite Muslim persecution a just reason for terorism against innocents as they say it is for Muslims as a group to be punished for terrorism from a few. Sauce for the Goose. Sauce for the Gander.
Last edited by shiv on 06 Dec 2007 20:11, edited 1 time in total.

surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Postby surinder » 06 Dec 2007 20:09

Johann wrote:1857 was an absolute cataclysm for the Muslims of Ganjetic India.

They launched a divisive and savage jihad against the Nazrani/Angrezi in the name of Deen-e-Islam and the Padishah, failed, and were paid back with only slightly less savagery in the same currency they had attempted to use.

They suffered death and socio-economic destruction on a scale few understand today. No Muslim male either of a certain class, or of a certain age within 50 miles of a city that had massacred its European population was safe. Movable goods were carried off as reward to loyal Indian troops (mostly Sikhs), and seized properties and titles were auctioned off, mostly to better-off local Hindus.

The eucated/wealthy Muslim of North India used the paradigm they were familar with to cope with the situation, and turned themselves in to dhimmis of Raj, while in turn maintaining Hindu dhimmitude to themselves.

The Muslim of India had never exercised dhimmitude over the Angrezi, so his/her conquest was tolerable, so long as the existing order underneath did not change.



Welcome back again, Johann. I hadn't read a post of yours for some weeks and was wondering if you had vanished away.

I think your post, while revealing, is stating many oft-repeated errors. Firstly, Muslims as a force had been spent from India by the time the British came to India. The British did not take India from the Muslims or the Mughals, they took it from the Marathas & the Sikhs primarily. Muslims had already been Dhimmized by the Marathas & the Sikhs for about a century before the British conquered India. The Dhimmi order under the Muslims had already changed BEFORE the British conquered India. ("The British won India, not from the Mughals, but from the Hindus. Before we appeared as conquerors, the Mughal Empire had broken up." --- The Imperial Gazetteer of India.) Muslims of India & Pakistan have found it convenient to maintain this fantasy that it was the Mughal empire gave way to the British---a more palatable outcome than loosing to the Kaafirs of India. Infact, I remember an article in Dawn which gleefully stated that Muslims are more freedom loving because they were subjugated for only 90 years (1857 to 1947) as oppposed to the Hindus who were slaves for 1000 years. This certainly helps with morale. Unfortunately, even many Hindus seem unaware of this.

Secondly, you are repeating the oft-repeated and manipulated idea of Sikhs and their participation in the British response to 1857. When British defeated the sarkar-i-Khalsa in 1839, a census soon after revealed that Sikhs were no more than 10% of Punjab. Consider the percentage in whole of India then. Add to this that British had many soldiers from Marathas, Dogras, Rajput, Bengalis, Central Indians, Gurkhas, Pathans, Punjabi Musssalman's and all other places, it is not a credible fact that Sikhs were a majority or even a significant presence in the British response to 1857. Sikhs were there, to be sure, especially from cis-Satluj loayal states, but nowhere were they a major factor. It must also be conceded that that Sikhs cast a disinterested eye on the 1857 rebellion and did not participate in favor, nor create an unfavorable situtation in the Punjab (which the British feared). It was AFTER the 1857 war that the British changed their policies and began recruiting Sikhs in large numbers. It had been the British policy to down-play Sikh anger against them and encourage the view that Sikhs were a great supporter of the British. This distorted history is a result of this projection.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 06 Dec 2007 20:11

On the tolerance of violence by the dhimmis hawks -

The dhimmi hawks, like every liberal group, modify their position in accordance to the perceived obstinacy of the other party. The reason why the liberals wilt in front of muslim violence is because muslims have proved their obduracy to external pressure over centuries. Hence, the liberals want a compromise on thier front.

However, Hindus have proved maleable. So, the liberals, in a fit of moral hypcrisy, try to impose punishment on the very group taking most of the responsibility for maintaining the peace. Very hypcritical, very very liberal.

However, the game was up when Hindus realised they were being taken for a ride. The case that blew in the faces of these liberals was the Shah Bano Case.

After that, the liberals have been essentially speaking in an echo chamber. The one advantage they do have is money. You would be surprised how many newsmagazines I find on the roadside bookstalls in Delhi - which propogate the 'liberal' POV. Most of them disappear after some time, but some new one comes up.


-------------

They will wilt further when they realise that Hindus are as (if not more) obdurate than muslims.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2007 20:15

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?

surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Postby surinder » 06 Dec 2007 20:19

shiv wrote:It is always a problem if you elevate someone to the level of God and then try to anoint him with human like weaknesses.

Gandhi had strengths and weaknesses and it is best to view him that way. We may accuse "other people" of elevating Gandhi to a God like status, but when people say "This should be done because gandhi did not do it" or "This should not be done because Gandhi did it" we are still giving him the status of God by saying "Do this in the name of God" or "Don't do this in the name of God'

What we do about Islamic extremism should not beviewed theorugh a Gandhi prism because any actions that we may want to take get clouded by respect or lack of respect for Gandhi.


Critique of Gandhi is very very important in the context of Dhimmitude. While Dhimmitude existed for a long time, it was Gandhi who first solidified this Dhimmitude gave it a respectable philosophical basis. Breaking Dhimmitude will never happen without taking on Gandhi. I am not a big fan of unnecessarily critizing Gandhi/nehru etc. But this needs to be done. You look at India and find your favorite Dhimmie, and they will call themselves a Ghandhiite. Whose potrait hangs behind the most Dhimmi party (Congress) of India: Ghandi. Infact, you take Gandhi out of a Dhimmi, you have practically destroyed his Dhimmitude.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 06 Dec 2007 20:20

Here is an example of the same side goal by dhimmi hawks -- this islamist thug Mahmood Madani very skilfully coopts the dhimmi hawk behaviour to justifty his islamist behaviour.

Vandalizing MF Husain's work is being used as an excuse by islamists to push their agenda.

link

The very fact that the barbarians in the AIMPLB have such a huge political clout says it all.


In what is styled as an account of her life, Nasreen airs her views on Islam, the role of women in it, the Quran and so on. This much is unimpeachable: since everyone is entitled to their views. It's paragraphs on the Prophet, between pages 64 and 66, that are believed to be "grossly indecent", in bad taste, and not worthy of any intelligent debate on the Prophet or the religion he founded. "Most people wouldn't write in this manner about an individual; Taslima's done so about a figure revered by a billion people," says a Muslim scholar.

Madani has now handed over the book—with the relevant portions highlighted—to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who too was reportedly surprised when he was told about what exactly Taslima had written. The Jamiat plans to file cases against her on charges of blasphemy and outraging public opinion. They have also invited concerned citizens to their Delhi office on December 1 to discuss the issue.

"People think we are angry because she has written against the burqa," says Madani. "We are not fools. You are entitled to your views on the burqa. I am open to an intellectual debate on Islam. But not the kind of rubbish she has written about the personal life and character of the Prophet. She has called him an aiyash (philanderer), written about his relations with women and dirty details I cannot repeat. It is better for us to die in shame than to accept this kind of insult." Maulana Abdul Hameed Nomani, also a member of the Jamiat, adds that the language used by Taslima to make up fictitious accounts in the life of the Prophet is "cheap and deserves the highest condemnation".

Freedom of expression, Madani goes on to say, does not give one the right to hurl insults at any religious icon. Does that mean the Jamiat does not support the actions of M.F. Husain either? "We strongly condemned his action in hurting Hindu sentiment. He has also apologised," says Madani. Nor does the maulana see the Taslima controversy as a Hindu-Muslim issue. "It is largely a debate between believers and non-believers. Let me tell you, many of Taslima's Hindu backers would also be shocked if they read this book. No religious man would stand for an insult to another religion in this cheap manner." ( So it is not a hindu-muslim issue but a believer-non believer issue, eh? This maulana clearly passed with an A grade in rhetoric in his madrassa)

And while intellectuals would be the last people to echo the maulana's view, sociologist Imtiaz Ahmad seems to agree with him when he says: "Free speech does not allow people to insult religion or icons." However, that he thinks is precisely why conservative elements win the free speech argument, and that liberals may have made a mistake when using the free speech platform to defend Taslima. "Our case for Taslima should rest on the fact that India has always been a haven for persecuted people." This is, indeed, the position the UPA has taken.

JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Postby JwalaMukhi » 06 Dec 2007 20:26

vsudhir wrote: But Gujrat may actually pave the way forward for the rest of yindoo csociety to take a template of nationalistic non-dhimmitude from. Yiondoo majority is not necessarily perma-dhimmi. Its looking for a credible leader and a worklable template that it can hope to follow. MKG was one such for that time. But so was SC Bose.

JMTs etc.

Nice post. The Gujarath phenomenon is a clear demonstration and a reminder to the (Psec+dhimmis+macs) to Holy Hindu trinity that Shiv refers to, that Dar-ul-islam is impossible inside India. It basically is asking the lazy, yes lazy trinity to do work to ensure that consititutional laws are upheld every single time, without any bias. It was a demonstration that Gujarathis will not live in squalid refugee camps as Kashmiri pandits do, which seems to be acceptable for the trinity. It is kick to the lazy to get to work that is causing psec media untold misery and is pouring bile on the incident.
It was a demonstration that if Justice is denied, unfortunate but the inevitable street justice will be resorted to.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2007 20:30

abhischekcc wrote:However, Hindus have proved maleable.


The same malleability gets displayed by former dhimmi hawks when faced with extreme hawk behavior by psecs.

Former dhimmis stutter and splutter in front of psecs and are completely unable to get the upper hand in debates and end up looking like buffoons. And when there is violence they get blamed. if it is Hindu violence it is their fault. If it is Muslim violence it is still their fault for causing a grievance.

Former dhimmis are roadside 25 paise beggar gymnasts earning random coins from passers by compared to the professional gymnasts that psec and macaulay group throw up who get a national and international following.

And typically the only frothing at the mouth response that former dhimmis can come up with is hot air talk about how their strength can make others tremble. Modi is an exception.

Islamists are frothing at the mouth hawks but they also have an extremely efficient and sophisticate propaganda machine that has beautiful rhetoric that makes them look really good. Compared to tha the former dhimis are babies who are most adept at soilingtheir chaddis. Just see the skilful way in which islamists couch their most egregious and bigoted rules and make them sound loving and just. Hindu need to get that straight before they open their mouths, I don't see any hope of that for at elast 20 years.

I am not joking. Debate and justification of aims, no matter how noble, needs a good propaganda machine. Former dhimmis need to develop that skill. No point asking someone to hand over media and airwaves or making empty threats that end up as sperm in the gutter.


Return to “Strategic & Security Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests