Tackling Islamic Extremism in India - 3

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1441
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Postby Pulikeshi » 31 Dec 2007 12:43

shiv wrote:Can Muslims alone then be allowed to keep sharia even in a diluted form in India?


Muslim Personal Law (MPL) in India owes as much to Anglo-Mohammedan law as it does to the Sharia or even less to the Koran – the ‘true’ source of authority in Islam.

Which means the Sharia already exists in a diluted form in India for civil law – also known as Muslim Personal Law in India.

The Muslim Personal Law Board (MPLB) has consistently refused to consider any updates to Muslim personal law in India.
Their traditional contention has been that they fear the oppression of the majority.
The irony is their fears may indeed come true by their inaction.

A good source is: Cases in the Muhammadan Law of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh: Asaf A.A. Fyzee; edited and revised by Tahir Mahmood, Oxford University Press, YMCA Library Building, Jai Singh Rd., New Delhi-110001. Contemporary Islamic Law

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

Postby shiv » 31 Dec 2007 13:53

Pulikeshi wrote:A good source is: Cases in the Muhammadan Law of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh: Asaf A.A. Fyzee; edited and revised by Tahir Mahmood, Oxford University Press, YMCA Library Building, Jai Singh Rd., New Delhi-110001. Contemporary Islamic Law

Very interesting - even though it is only a review:

While Fyzee found Indian courts having given "utmost sanctity to the Holy Quran as the only revealed book of Islam" and dismissed petitions attacking the Quran (Chopra, AIR 1986 Cal.104), he has stated that the trends in Pakistan and Bangladesh have been different despite their officially owing allegiance to Islam. In Pakistan (Rashida Begum, Din PLD 1960 Lah.1142) the Lahore High Court observed, "If the interpretation of the Holy Quran by the commentators who lived thirteen or twelve hundred years ago is considered as the last word on the subject then the whole Islamic society will be shut up in an iron cage and not allowed to develop along with the time."
Imrana case
One wonders whether the caution and restraint which Fyzee found on the part of Indian courts are being misunderstood by a section of the Islamic clergy in recent times to assume jurisdiction for running a parallel system of adjudication.


Indeed. If kindness and sensitivity are mistaken for weakness I see hard knocks coming.

On the need for reform of Islamic law:
Unfortunately, the issue got involved in communal politics to such an extent that even public discourse on the subject is suspect and inhibited.

Apu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 34
Joined: 10 May 2006 11:02
Location: UK

Postby Apu » 31 Dec 2007 14:10

[quote="Pulikeshi"]Shiv,

Before I comment on your diagram – let me clarify some assumptions/background I am falling back on in presenting my feedback.

1. India and TSP are in a long drawn civil war This is as much a battle of blood and steel as it is for the minds and hearts of people.

2. Many Indian Muslims (IMs) chose to stay in India – not because India is secular, but because they were home and it was convenient not to move. IMs see secularism -- Indian style -- guaranteeing their way of life in a Hindu majority India.

3. Secularism (Common Secular Space (CSS) means different things to Hindus and Muslims in India. The former consider it a sacrosanct requirement for democracy (even if they do not understand its origins or its purpose), the latter see it as a barrier to indulge in Islamic exclusivity and maintenance of Islamic Purity.

4. Islamists in particular, if not all of Islam in general, has gotten itself on this search for purity. In this they are similar to the Nazis, Communists, etc. who tried the same with race or community.

5. Educated Hindus consider their religion to be egalitarian, open-minded and allowing of individual freedom. They find this search for purity distasteful. When they attack the CSS, what the other Hindus (call them Dhimmis if you will) do not understand is if such an attack is on Secularism or on the exclusivity of Islam. They mistakenly consider them to be one and the same.

Now your diagram aptly describes the cause-effect in the first two blocks at the top. The “Anger in Civil Societyâ€

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

Postby JwalaMukhi » 31 Dec 2007 21:13

As has been highlighted the distrbuted sytem of hinduism is its strength and also its weakness. One important aspect of this scheme is major and probably the main emphasis is on individual self-realization, which skews that individual experientials are paramount. (This is great in an (advanced) settings where rules of engagement are strictly adhered by all the players.) This individual emphasis fails to generate the empathy in hindus that other groups can garner. For example, some cartoonist (not in India) draws M'hmad, instantly all the Muslims have 'Takleef' and hit out anyone/anything who/which is non-Islamic, anywhere, including India. One can guess how the ranks would close and what the reaction would be when some muslims die.
Consider counter example of when hindus are killed due to terrorism, not every hindu empathizes with it as it is not in her realm of individual experience. The reaction is muted in most cases, if not, it is localized. The secularists understand this phenomena very well and exploit the situation.

Secularists (most vocal of them) despite all their posturing about violence have been consistently displaying hypocrisy. If they truly have been fighting for 'Secular' space, never mind pig flying moment. Borrowing Vsudhir's idea of how Islamists have immense capacity to be stupid and score self-goals, the secular brigade is also scoring self-goals.
Exhibit A: Reaction of Secular brigade to Nandigram. (Abhor violence only when it suits)
Exhibit B: Reaction of Secular brigade to a secular intellectual, who calls for dramatic and sudden removal of an important citizen (where are advocates of non-violence - the pet theme of secularists who cannot see any bleeding of non-hindu variety).

Hindus as (shiv points out) are not special primates who have extraordinary levels of tolerance. If succumbing to threats of mob violence and disruption works everytime, as any primate having enuf intelligence to learn from the surrounding ambience, is it too much to accept, hindus would also learn that trick if not sooner atleast a little later.

Sickularists are not interested in creating 'Secular' space, as much as they are interested in preserving status-quo, because it is no skin of their back. Hypocrisy works well and enriches their personal standings and fortunes, while hamstranging aam admi. The aam junta is realizing that this hyprocrisy is causing lot of takleef as it is an impediment to their aspirations. The aam admi has started making connection that everytime sickularists loose, it is gain for them. sickularists have lost the ability to read the writing on the wall and adopt, that means change will be forced on them by history.

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

Postby shiv » 01 Jan 2008 09:31

JwalaMukhi wrote:Secularists (most vocal of them) despite all their posturing about violence have been consistently displaying hypocrisy. If they truly have been fighting for 'Secular' space, never mind pig flying moment. Borrowing Vsudhir's idea of how Islamists have immense capacity to be stupid and score self-goals, the secular brigade is also scoring self-goals.
Exhibit A: Reaction of Secular brigade to Nandigram. (Abhor violence only when it suits)
Exhibit B: Reaction of Secular brigade to a secular intellectual, who calls for dramatic and sudden removal of an important citizen (where are advocates of non-violence - the pet theme of secularists who cannot see any bleeding of non-hindu variety).


I believe that some secularists in India don't realise that they too show Hindu communal type of behavior even as they accuse other Hindus of being right wing communalists.

I have stated this in a different way earlier, but let me expand.

Hindu secularism revolves around rubbing in the differences. "Oh today is Id no? Your festival no? You must be wanting non veg no?." Or "Hush Vijaylakshmi. Don't offer coffee now. Don't you know it is Ramzan?"

Hindu secular behavior is a type of behavior that complements Islamist behavior like a lock for a key, but allows no scope for any (secular) Muslim who doesn't give a damn and wants to behave just like any other guy. As long as the devout Muslim is around to say "No No No. Today is Ramzan", the secular Hindu is always there to anticipate that a guy with a Muslim name will say "Today is Ramzan". The secular will himself show his great secular knowledge "Today is Ramzan no? You won't eat no? What? You will eat? That is very bad. Ha ha. You are a Muslim no? You are not supposed to eat no?" Never mind that the Hindu himself will not be showing great Hinduness. But he almost demands pure Muslim behavior from a Muslim just to be "secular"

Overzealously secular Hindus do that. They tend to go out of their way and show great sensitivity for some obscure observation of some other faith. By doing that they tend to highlight the difference rather than concentrate on the similarities or allow a Muslim to be different if he wishes. If he has a Muslim name we must put him in a Muslim box. The secular Hindu will put him in a Muslim box and show artificial obsequiousness and sensitivity and almost demand Islamist behavior from him.

It is all very well to claim secularity by "making way" for a Muslim to be as Islamic as he likes. But surely if Muslim wants to be highly Islamic, why not give him a chance to say it himself and don't second guess him. Why force his behavior? The result of this secular "forced display or Islamic behavior" is basically communal, because the person who wants to show Islamic behavior has his path open and expects it to be open. But the Muslim who has no great tendency to behave particularly Islamic is forced to act like a Muslim just to please the cheap secular who expects him to be a fundoo.

These people are hypersecular to the extent of forcing a a communal color on secular meetings in secular space. In fact even this name may be wrong, because the behavior is hardly secular. Maybe the name pseudosecular is apt for this particular behavior. I don't like the way in which it is usually used. Any any Hindu who does not behave in this obsequious manner is a fundamentalist "who hates Muslims".

Am I rambling or does anyone else sense this?

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 01 Jan 2008 09:46

Shiv ji you are absolutely on dot with your observations.
No rambling what so ever.. secular Hindus drive moderate Islamic followers into the fold of hardcore Islamists.

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

Postby asprinzl » 01 Jan 2008 10:10

So, what does the concerned HIndu to do?

1) Empower the dis-enfranchised, poor, illiterate village Hindus and bring awareness to them?

2) Slowly reduce the size of the constituency that secular Hindus depend on for cushion?

3) Reach out to Muslims who want out?

I would think that secular Hindus know that as long as they can keep those poor illiterate and dis-enfranchised Hindus under their spell, they can preety much be in position of power even if their real number is preety small.

I also think that it would be much easier to reach out to the poor/illiterates regarding the Islamist threat than to convert the MacSecular Hindus because one is ideologically convinced while the other is just unimformed.

My question for Indians in India is this: How much effort is being made to bring dis-enfranchised, poor and illiterate Hindus into the mileu of political Hinduism?

I would like to think that for political Hinduism to win this struggle, Hindu unity is of paramount importance. Thus, Hindus regardless of region, caste/sect and tribal difference must come together. Otherwise, MacSecularites would still rule the roost despite his/her diminishing numbers.

Avram

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3693
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Postby sanjaykumar » 01 Jan 2008 10:27

Those who are called secular in this thread are in fact driven by two motivations:

1 IM can create havoc in India putting not only India's ultimate goal of hyperpower at risk but also make daily living intolerable. Previously there was an unacklnowledged need to placate Pakistan lest the Muslim hordes from the Northwest descend on the heartland once agin. This, even with proxy war, is less of a motivation as India grows stronger.

2 A second more fundamental reason is self-image. A cynical, urbane Westernised self-image neccesitates a disassociation from what Westerners putatively find distasteful in the Hindu-the many-armed gods, the religiosity, the millenial animosities, the poverty, the tradition.
This is of course the view of an Indian who gets his gestalt of the West from glossy magazines and Hollywood rather than the bible thumping, nigger lynching bapists.

As India grows richer, the very same people, who have this anomie will seize the opportunity to pursue an aggressive Hindu course as a self-assurance that they wer eafter all not inferior to their concept of Westerners. We see this in Gujerat. It may be that Gujerat is really about dhimmitude to the West, Muslims are of secondary concern.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 01 Jan 2008 11:00

asprinzl wrote:My question for Indians in India is this: How much effort is being made to bring dis-enfranchised, poor and illiterate Hindus into the mileu of political Hinduism?
It is a matter of trying to catch them young. Even today, the school curriculum is the same hacken eyed studies of AIT et al in our schools. There is a singificnat effort led by the Sangh and some other organizations to impart whatever cultural training possible within the anti-Hindu Indian system. However, it is an uphill battle with an anti-hindu state working against you. This is where political power can make a difference.

I would like to think that for political Hinduism to win this struggle, Hindu unity is of paramount importance. Thus, Hindus regardless of region, caste/sect and tribal difference must come together. Otherwise, MacSecularites would still rule the roost despite his/her diminishing numbers.
Agree, with the thrust of your statement. However, one should be careful with the words political hinuduism. As far as I know, there is NO political hindu program on the lines of a theological state but it does have a cultural agenda. That cultural agenda is more or less on the lines of the American system, where the state is separate from the church, however it is well acknowledged and accepted among the polity that religion and politics cannot be truly separated, as both deal with people, but the affairs of the state can be.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 01 Jan 2008 17:50, edited 1 time in total.

Karan Dixit
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Location: Calcutta

Postby Karan Dixit » 01 Jan 2008 16:33

shiv wrote:
JwalaMukhi wrote:Secularists (most vocal of them) despite all their posturing about violence have been consistently displaying hypocrisy. If they truly have been fighting for 'Secular' space, never mind pig flying moment. Borrowing Vsudhir's idea of how Islamists have immense capacity to be stupid and score self-goals, the secular brigade is also scoring self-goals.
Exhibit A: Reaction of Secular brigade to Nandigram. (Abhor violence only when it suits)
Exhibit B: Reaction of Secular brigade to a secular intellectual, who calls for dramatic and sudden removal of an important citizen (where are advocates of non-violence - the pet theme of secularists who cannot see any bleeding of non-hindu variety).


I believe that some secularists in India don't realise that they too show Hindu communal type of behavior even as they accuse other Hindus of being right wing communalists.

I have stated this in a different way earlier, but let me expand.

Hindu secularism revolves around rubbing in the differences. "Oh today is Id no? Your festival no? You must be wanting non veg no?." Or "Hush Vijaylakshmi. Don't offer coffee now. Don't you know it is Ramzan?"

Hindu secular behavior is a type of behavior that complements Islamist behavior like a lock for a key, but allows no scope for any (secular) Muslim who doesn't give a damn and wants to behave just like any other guy. As long as the devout Muslim is around to say "No No No. Today is Ramzan", the secular Hindu is always there to anticipate that a guy with a Muslim name will say "Today is Ramzan". The secular will himself show his great secular knowledge "Today is Ramzan no? You won't eat no? What? You will eat? That is very bad. Ha ha. You are a Muslim no? You are not supposed to eat no?" Never mind that the Hindu himself will not be showing great Hinduness. But he almost demands pure Muslim behavior from a Muslim just to be "secular"

Overzealously secular Hindus do that. They tend to go out of their way and show great sensitivity for some obscure observation of some other faith. By doing that they tend to highlight the difference rather than concentrate on the similarities or allow a Muslim to be different if he wishes. If he has a Muslim name we must put him in a Muslim box. The secular Hindu will put him in a Muslim box and show artificial obsequiousness and sensitivity and almost demand Islamist behavior from him.

It is all very well to claim secularity by "making way" for a Muslim to be as Islamic as he likes. But surely if Muslim wants to be highly Islamic, why not give him a chance to say it himself and don't second guess him. Why force his behavior? The result of this secular "forced display or Islamic behavior" is basically communal, because the person who wants to show Islamic behavior has his path open and expects it to be open. But the Muslim who has no great tendency to behave particularly Islamic is forced to act like a Muslim just to please the cheap secular who expects him to be a fundoo.

These people are hypersecular to the extent of forcing a a communal color on secular meetings in secular space. In fact even this name may be wrong, because the behavior is hardly secular. Maybe the name pseudosecular is apt for this particular behavior. I don't like the way in which it is usually used. Any any Hindu who does not behave in this obsequious manner is a fundamentalist "who hates Muslims".

Am I rambling or does anyone else sense this?


I sense it too. I have noticed this trend among Hindus for a while now. You did an excellent job in articulating it.

May be this topic requires another pdf style book?

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

Postby shiv » 01 Jan 2008 18:20

Reading a number of posts - and points made by Pulikeshi, Jwalamukhi and the question asked by Avram about political Hindusm - I had some thoughts.

It just occurred to me that the behavior I described of the "secular Hindu" is at least in part because the secular Hindu himself is "communal". He wants to protect his space and his way. He may be vegetarian, or may want to do something in a particular way within his community. Because of that desire, he makes it clear to the Muslim that the latter is welcome to behave as Islamic as he wants, and the quid pro quo for that is that the Hindu will continue to lead his life the way he wants.

in fact this oddly worded description of mine fits in both with the accusation that Hindus are communal, and with the claim from "Hindutva" parties that Hindus have their dharma as part of their lives and cannot be forcibly converted into some artificial secular being by accusing them of intolerance.

But let me deal with "secularism" again using the apt words that Pulikeshi originally used - i.e that secularism is a "space" for a purpose.

In its original context, in Britain, secularism was a "space" within governance that had no room for religion. Religion was for the laity - who could have as much or as little as they wanted, but religion would get no quarter in government.

In other words, in its original context some centuries ago in Britain had secularism in government, but no secularism among the people. Since nearly everyone was Christian, there was no real need for a "secular space" among the people.

The need for a secular space among people arises only when you have a mixture of religions in society. I believe this is a point we have been missing when we speak of secularism.

Secularism is introduced at two different levels. The first level is "No religion in government". That is simple enough. India follows it too as per the constitution.

The second level of secularism is "the common space among people" described by Pulikeshi. This space is expected to exist outside the government in a society that consists of mixed religions, so that they do not step on each others' toes or sensitivities. No definition of secularism that I have seen describes this "common secular space for people of mixed religions" outside of government.

Note that Britain originally had only (mainly) Christians, and such a common secular space for people was unnecessary until minority religions became significant in number. Once this happened, Britain started dealing with lack of secularism among people from a legal viewpoint - i.e law and order, individual rights and freedom of religion. Not that Britain has been totally successful, but I speak of Britain because I want to compare with India, which took the "secularism in government" idea from Britain.

India too got a secular government. But from the beginning modern India had a mixed population of religions, primarily Hindu/Indic and Muslim.

None of these people were "secular" by themselves. The fact that Hindus and Muslims coexisted with each other has been mistakenly attributed to secularism. That is wrong. both societies are highly communal as I described earlier. Each society just reached a degree of adjustment where they would hardly be "secular" and remove religion from society, but they would be total adherents to their faith but yet create some space for the other. This unique Indian situation is decidedly not secularism. It is a religion charged society. It is wrong to either use the word "secularism" in this space, and it is equally a mistake to assume that secularism as in "removal of religion" can be done in the common space that exists among people in India.

Once we remove the misnomer "secular" to describe society in India, we come to the other word that is commonly used "tolerance". But we have already discussed that. Tolerance cannot be a one sided affair, and loss of tolerance cannot be linked with lack of secularism in a society that was never ever secular.

Muslims have to tolerate Hindus in India. Indian society gives every individual the choice of being fully Islamic, or not Islamic at all. Anything less than this is a loss of freedom and is intolerable to the Indian way of living. That which is intolerable cannot, by definition, be tolerated and nobody must be asked to show tolerance for the intolerable. If tolerance of freedom of religion is an anathema to Islam, that is just tough luck. But somebody, somewhere has to put his foot down and say enough is enough. If it means that someone wants a fight, that fight must be fought.

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

Postby vsudhir » 01 Jan 2008 18:57

Once we remove the misnomer "secular" to describe society in India, we come to the other word that is commonly used "tolerance". But we have already discussed that. Tolerance cannot be a one sided affair, and loss of tolerance cannot be linked with lack of secularism in a society that was never ever secular.


Hmmm. Meaning, the "Hindu muslim bhai bhai" is BS. Was as true at anytime in 747-2007 AD as indi-chini bhai-bhai was in 1962.
Coz bhai-bhai implies more than mere tolerance. It implies actual affection and such. No?

Muslims have to tolerate Hindus in India. Indian society gives every individual the choice of being fully Islamic, or not Islamic at all. Anything less than this is a loss of freedom and is intolerable to the Indian way of living. That which is intolerable cannot, by definition, be tolerated and nobody must be asked to show tolerance for the intolerable. If tolerance of freedom of religion is an anathema to Islam, that is just tough luck. But somebody, somewhere has to put his foot down and say enough is enough. If it means that someone wants a fight, that fight must be fought.


The good fight won't be ought from our side unless the islamists bring it to a head through some massive self-goal. Some jundullah with a JDAM somewhere (or alternately some other method of mass-murder such as flying planes into buildings, poisoning water supply, blowing up bridges, dirty bums etc) will bring that situation to flashpoint sooner or later on a global scale. In my mind, the only question is will it happen first in the west or in yindia. The sequence of events (whether west is first or us SDREs onlee) will definitely affect the scale and scope of responses, options, propaganda and perspective.

The other option - of slow demographic conquest until it is well too late is sad to contemplate. There will be no response from the yindoos, seems like. Ethnic cleansing in 'their' districts (e.g., in Asom) will be met with as much outrage and reaction as was meted to the Kashmiri pandits and BD yindoos, IMO.

JMTs and IMVHOs, of course.
Last edited by vsudhir on 01 Jan 2008 19:44, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby shiv » 01 Jan 2008 19:25

vsudhir wrote:Hmmm. Meaning, the "Hindu muslim bhai bhai" is BS. Was as true at anytime in 747-2007 AD as indi-chini bhai-bhai was in 1962.

Coz bhai-bhai implies more than mere tolerance. It implies actual affection and such.


Not really IMO . You should be suspicious when you hear the expression "bhai bhai". I personally hate the expression "bhai-bhai" because it is a rhetorical and public announcement of brotherly kinship when there is some doubt about that kinship.

When you see two friends who are really close, you rarely hear "bhai bhai". You only hear "bhai" or "dost" "Bhai" means "real brother". Bhai bhai means "like brothers". It is used in the sense of "shake hands and make up" or "kiss and make up". Intrinsic in this is the fact that there are differences that are being inexplicably buried while assering "bhai bhai"
There is Freudian honesty in "bhai bhai", when used instead of "bhai" or "jigri dost"

Bhai bhai is a contract, not a bond.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20886
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 02 Jan 2008 00:53

JwalaMukhi wrote:As has been highlighted the distrbuted sytem of hinduism is its strength and also its weakness. One important aspect of this scheme is major and probably the main emphasis is on individual self-realization, which skews that individual experientials are paramount. (This is great in an (advanced) settings where rules of engagement are strictly adhered by all the players.) This individual emphasis fails to generate the empathy in hindus that other groups can garner. For example, some cartoonist (not in India) draws M'hmad, instantly all the Muslims have 'Takleef' and hit out anyone/anything who/which is non-Islamic, anywhere, including India. One can guess how the ranks would close and what the reaction would be when some muslims die.
by history.


Jawala Mukhi, this have been age old issue with as Swami explained the necessity of having Vedantic Mind and Islamic body . What we need are non religious symbols ,issues to unite on . Snatan Dharam declares multiple expression of Ultimate reality and epmphasizes Individual experience . This leaves us with mundane options onlee to solve the current dilemma . Patriotism , nationalism , economic, social , political, national security issues augmented by Dharma has the potential to generate unifying force. But Psec etc are impendinment in this consolidating process by constantly creating fault lines thus the necessity of their removal from Indian public scene. So far they have not made any constructive contribution in strengthing India.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Jan 2008 01:41

Shiv: It is instructive to read some of the background to the formation of the Indian constitution, the workings of the constituent assembly and the general pre-disposition of the constitution and its various amendments, which enlighten us on the origins of the secularism debate (or non-debate) in India. I will recommend Subhash Kashyap, a foremost authority on these topics and has written many books and works on the constitution of India.

A few things to note:

Secularism, in India was adopted as a potential way out from the communally charged political and social environment of the periods 1930-1950.

The constitution particularly envisioned a "secular" governance model. There was no meaningful resistance to that concept. But, it did not stop there. It incorporated article 29 and 30. Together they served to treat the minorities by providing them special rights, denied to the Hindus in control of place of worship and control of educational institutions.

If that was not enough, articles 15(4) and 16(4) combined to promote reservations along the lines of castes and classes - only for the hindus. It put in a stamp of an ameliorative character to the constitution, where ONLY the hindus were targeted to accept reform, modernization and remedy of old societal structures, such as caste.

The official policy was to promote “secularismâ€

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

Postby vsudhir » 02 Jan 2008 02:52

Shaurya T
1. The solution templates to tackle Islamists, can run through constitutional remedies, which can be most effective in the new modern republic, instead of mayhem and violent public responses, which achieve little in terms of lasting solutions
2. The first can only be achieved, if the elite in India, utterly maccuaylized minds can start thinking and acting in their own self interst, first and not be unduly influenced and manipulated by a combination of Islamic and outside interests and powers. The macuaylized minds will have to learn to be comfortable in their hindu skins.


Are you aware of any historical parallels wherein Hindu masses rose up in rebellion as Hindus against an unjust, established elite? Shivaji, perhaps?
I doubt it because before islam and the Brits, the Hindus never saw themselves as hindu. We were, quite literally, the world. There was no 'other'.

Continuing...
Hence, this project of rectifying the asymmetric nature of constituional secularism in India throufgh democratic and constitutional means might just be an all time first for us yindoos. The Ram Mandir, all said and done was more symbolism than substance. Redefining secularism here is the big prize.

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

Postby shiv » 02 Jan 2008 06:04

Just a little reminder of the basis of this thread:



8 killed in LeT Fidayeen attack on CRPF camp in Rampur

The attack was carried out by the Lashkar E Toiba

From the wiki link:
The LeT's professed ideology goes beyond merely challenging India's sovereignty over the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Lashkar's agenda, as outlined in a pamphlet titled "Why are we waging jihad", includes the restoration of Islamic rule over all parts of South Asia, Russia and even China. Further, the outfit is based on a sort of Islamist fundamentalism preached by its mentor, the JuD. It seeks to bring about a union of all Muslim majority regions in countries that surround Pakistan


On 1st January 2008 an Islamist terrorist group has killed 6 soldiers.

There terrorist DO get sympathy and support in India among a small minority perhaps of Indian Muslims. This small minority has no business living freely in India.

If any segment of the Indian Muslim population is knowingly helping any member of such a group those people must be found and brought to book and no excuse or grievance accepted for supporting murder.

Oh yes the group is Pakistani (formerly Indian Muslims). But their target is India and their support comes from some small segment of Indian Muslims. That support needs to be wiped out.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Jan 2008 08:20

vsudhir wrote:Are you aware of any historical parallels wherein Hindu masses rose up in rebellion as Hindus against an unjust, established elite? Shivaji, perhaps?
I am not sure on what your qualification as Hindus mean, especially with the Shivaji example.

Hindus have never seen themselves as a single organized state unit across the sub continent. The very concept of a nation state is fairly new relative to the civilization history of Hindus.

Hindus, before Islam, have been able to unite very large parts of India under a single ruler - although all of this was much before the concept of nations states was around. Even the Marathas captured large parts in the 18th century.

However, what is important to understand is, Hindus have always looked upon themselves as a people, who did share common values and systems with the masses of the sub continent. The state(s) that govern them have been fungible. This fungiblity of the state and monarch have had little effect on the daily life of its peoples. It was only with the advent of Islam that the state was adverserial to the systems of the land and seeked to convert the people by force.

To your specific question, if looked from the prism of a people, attacked in a particular sovereign type territory then the Hindu people have always risen against the marrauding Islamist forces. Hindu kings seldom kept large standing armies. They were most likely dependent on ad hoc forces raised from the people, the monarch commanded respect from. In that context, Hindus have fought 1000's of such battles, rising in support of their monarch and to preserve their way of life.

But, this response was only reserved for a life threatening situation. Hindus are still learning to use the the apparatus of a large nation state to drive its common agenda.

I doubt it because before islam and the Brits, the Hindus never saw themselves as hindu. We were, quite literally, the world. There was no 'other'.
Au contraire, others were always there, east, west, north and south. It is the very basis of the Hindu non-exclusivist ethos. Hindus were not like the Chinese, with the concept of a middle kingdom et al. The necessity to organize in a more larger state system has stemmed from the need to protect its local systems from marrauding forces and a necessity in a dog eat dog world, made up of exclusivist social and political systems and a resultant economic system , alien to the hindu ethos.

It is more appropriate to say, that Hindus saw themselves and everyone else as Hindus. It worked fine, till Islam came along.

Hence, this project of rectifying the asymmetric nature of constituional secularism in India throufgh democratic and constitutional means might just be an all time first for us yindoos. The Ram Mandir, all said and done was more symbolism than substance. Redefining secularism here is the big prize.
A slightly differrent take. Hindus have beep proven to be remarkably fungible in their ability to take many different types of political systems.

The failure to bind and unite Hindus as Hindus, in an era of nation states is the mistake make by our founding fathers, is my view. Instead, they seeked to destroy hindu society, by default, if not by design.

The big project is to come to a common shared understanding of who the Hindus are and what do Hindus stand for. Once a common definition is well accepted across the political spectrum, the other concepts of the governance model will flow from it.

Secularism should be probably the first concept that should be ditched. As the historical record of an organized Church and State being over lapped with each other, never existed in Hindu India.

Qan Payle
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 11 Dec 2007 14:23

Postby Qan Payle » 02 Jan 2008 09:02

Hinduism has thrived in the past because we allowed a 'No One Gets the Flag', mentality to flourish. Everyone got his slice of the cake through the strength of patronage from royals, brahmins and wealthy merchants, and enjoyed varying degrees of power(In Hinduism I am also including Jainism and Budhism, as well as Brahmanism, Bhakti, etc).

We suffered because we allowed one exclusivist religion, Islam, to dominate India, and we will continue to suffer if we allow political Islam to again dominate India, or for that matter to allow Exclusivist Christian sects to dominate.

Hindus, of any stripe, need to unite. Period! Then we can ensure 'no one captures the flag', and allow room for other tolerant faiths such as liberal Christian and Moslem denominations, as well as tolerant and liberal a-religious groups. I would be obliged if Forum members can point out a few to me, so I can do some research.

Thanks,
Qan Payle

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1441
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Postby Pulikeshi » 02 Jan 2008 09:58

I for one do not believe it is possible to unify the Hindus - what ever that means politically, economically or religiously for an extended time period.
This is not a defeat just a acknowledgment of reality.
However, there is no need to despair - unity is overrated.
The coming knowledge world cannot be run by "Command & Control" it is not merely an accident of English education that enabled us to be strong in IT.

ShauryaT wrote:It is more appropriate to say, that Hindus saw themselves and everyone else as Hindus. It worked fine, till Islam came along.


Actually, it kind of worked fine till the Parsi from Iran came along with their concept of monotheism.
Even when the Greeks invaded, we saw them as mleccha (barbarian as they held slaves) but not necessarily different.
However, only with the Parsi did we see a religion that was monotheistic and in a major sense – Adharmic.

But since the advent of Islam and as the shock wave that came from that blast caused the movement of the Parsis into India,
we have not learnt to understand the Adharmics.

ShauryaT wrote:The big project is to come to a common shared understanding of who the Hindus are and what do Hindus stand for. Once a common definition is well accepted across the political spectrum, the other concepts of the governance model will flow from it.


Prem wrote:Patriotism , nationalism , economic, social , political, national security issues augmented by Dharma has the potential to generate unifying force.


The answer to the common shared (the lest in common between a Kashmiri Pandit, a Tamil Kongu Vellal Gounder, an Armari Maratha,
a Kurmi from Bihar, a Dalit from UP, etc) understanding for what Hindus are bound by is Dharma.

When ever a “modernâ€

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

Postby indygill » 02 Jan 2008 10:22

There terrorist DO get sympathy and support in India among a small minority perhaps of Indian Muslims. This small minority has no business living freely in India.


No its not the muslim support that matters. It is the "support" from Indian Institutions that what matters. It is the "soft approach" towards Islamic terrorism and support by "proxy" from so-called "secular" parties of India that is to be blamed. It is all done in the pretext of "secular" national policy of "minority appeasment" at any cost. Vote bank or "huge money" of Waqf Boards could be the reason.

Rudranathh
BRFite
Posts: 227
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 20:06

Postby Rudranathh » 02 Jan 2008 11:23

X-posting

Shivji it would be great if it could be indentified from which muslim caste the majority of the foot soldiers of Islamists come from.

Ambedkar's views on the caste system of Muslim society

Take the caste system. Islam speaks of brotherhood. Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste.

Regarding slavery nothing needs to be said. It stands abolished now by law. But while it existed, much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries./2/ While the prescriptions by the Prophet regarding the just and humane treatment of slaves contained in the Koran are praiseworthy, there is nothing whatever in Islam that lends support to the abolition of this curse. As Sir W. Muir has well said /3/:—
". . .rather, while lightening, lie riveted the fetter. . . .There is no obligation on a Muslim to release his slaves. . . ."

But if slavery has gone, caste among Musalmans has remained. As an illustration one may take the conditions prevalent among the Bengal Muslims. The Superintendent of the Census for 1901 for the Province of Bengal records the following interesting facts regarding the Muslims of Bengal :—

"The conventional division of the Mahomedans into four tribes— Sheikh, Saiad, Moghul and Pathan—has very little application to this Province (Bengal). The Mahomedans themselves recognize two main social divisions, (1) Ashraf or Sharaf and (2) Ajlaf. Ashraf means 'noble' and includes all undoubted descendants of foreigners and converts from high caste Hindus. All other Mahomedans including the occupational groups and all converts of lower ranks, are known by the contemptuous terms, 'Ajlaf ,' 'wretches' or 'mean people': they are also called Kamina or Itar, 'base' or Rasil, a corruption of Rizal, 'worthless.' In some places a third class, called Arzal or 'lowest of all,' is added. With them no other Mahomedan would associate, and they are forbidden to enter the mosque to use the public burial ground.

"Within these groups there are castes with social precedence of exactly the same nature as one finds among the Hindus.

I. Ashraf or better class Mahomedans.
(1) Saiads.
(2) Sheikhs.
(3) Pathans.
(4) Moghul.
(5) Mallik.
(6) Mirza.

II. Ajlaf or lower class Mahomedans.
(1) Cultivating Sheikhs, and others who were originally Hindus but who do not belong to any functional group, and have not gained admittance to the Ashraf Community, e.g. Pirali and Thakrai.
(2) Darzi, Jolaha, Fakir, and Rangrez.
(3) Barhi, Bhalhiara, Chik, Churihar, Dai, Dhawa, Dhunia, Gaddi, Kalal, Kasai, Kula Kunjara, Laheri, Mahifarosh, Mallah, Naliya, Nikari.
(4) Abdal, Bako, Bediya, Bhal, Chamba, Dafali, Dhobi, Hajjam, Mucho, Nagarchi, Nal,Panwaria, Madaria, Tunlia.

III. Arzal or degraded class.
Bhanar, Halalkhor, Hijra, Kasbi, Lalbegi, Maugta, Mehtar."
The Census Superintendent mentions another feature of the Muslim social system, namely, the prevalence of the "panchayat system." He states :—
"The authority of the panchayat extends to social as well as trade matters and. . .marriage with people of' other communities is one of the offences of which the governing body takes cognizance. The result is that these groups are often as strictly endogamous as Hindu castes. The prohibition on inter-marriage extends to higher as well as to lower castes, and a Dhuma, for example, may marry no one but a Dhuma. If this rule is transgressed, the offender is at once hauled up before the panchayat and ejected ignominiously from his community. A member of one such group cannot ordinarily gain admission to another, and he retains the designation of the community in which he was born even if he abandons its distinctive occupation and takes to other means of livelihood. . . .thousands of Jolahas are butchers, yet they are still known as Jolahas."

Similar facts from other Provinces of India could be gathered from their respective Census Reports, and those who are curious may refer to them. But the facts for Bengal are enough to show that the Mahomedans observe not only caste but also untouchability.

Rudranathh
BRFite
Posts: 227
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 20:06

Postby Rudranathh » 02 Jan 2008 11:26

Azamgarh to host Islam’s largest global meet
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news ... st-Islams- largest-global-meet/255563/
Dec 29, 2007
[quote]
Sherwan (Azamgarh), December 28 Ever imagined 300 hotels, 14 dispensaries, a hospital, four towers of cellular service providers and a perfect accommodation for lakhs of pilgrims at a single village?

Not a poll promise, it is just the scene at Sherwan, a nondescript hamlet in this corner of Uttar Pradesh.

The village has turned into a makeshift pilgrimage for Muslims who will gather from December 29 to 31for the Alami Ijtema (the largest international congregation) of global Islamic movement Tablighi Jammat.

The jammat is likely to be attended by devouts from across the globe, including Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, the UK, France and Canada.

“I cannot give the exact figure, but we are expecting the around 15 to 20 lakh people. This congregation is basically to judge the effectiveness of the Tablighi Jamaat, whose network preaches Islam across the world,â€

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

Postby shiv » 02 Jan 2008 13:41

Pulikeshi wrote:That means that the said belief is not exclusivist and does not impose itself as the one true away to the harm of all other.
Pluralistic ethos is fundamental to Hinduism.
However, it does tolerate the Dharmic and has yet to understand the Adharmic beliefs.
Establishing the bounds of the latter is a good starting offensive play.

JMT


Unfortunately dharma competes with dharma when the time is inauspicious.

It may be my dharma, at one stage in my life, to look after my wife and small children, and perhaps aged parents. That means that I should not fritter away my own life in a fruitless battle against a superior adharmic foe who will spare my life in exchange for tolerating him.

Dharma is not fixed in stone. It may well be that a propitious time has arrived to question the adharma that has been imposed by the forces of history.

The weighing of some principles of dharma against other principles by solid reasoning was done by Krishna in the Gita. Following the path of the right dharma when there is a conflict of dharmic imperatives is a matter of leadership and collective realization rather than individual thought processes that lead to different dharmic ideals.

Maybe a redefinition of dharma needs to be enunciated in the light of experience gained with the onslaught of adharmic faiths that arose and thrived in the weak spots that were undefended by dharma. Let gyan move forward and not remain based only on what was known at some earlier time.

Protection of one's way of life and thought needs to be defined as a high dharmic ideal for reasons that become clear only when one is exposed to the intolerance and rigidity of other faiths.

"I nearly got killed. Now I know better what the problem is and realise that I should guard against it"

Qan Payle
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 11 Dec 2007 14:23

Postby Qan Payle » 02 Jan 2008 15:47

Pulikeshi wrote:I for one do not believe it is possible to unify the Hindus - what ever that means politically, economically or religiously for an extended time period.


By unity I mean having a shared sense of common identity and a shared sense of pride and belief in certain principles. Even if a large plurality of Hindus are united in this fashion, I think it is enough to cement society.

It is said that in America, there is a cultural vacuum, but there exists a large majority of people from varying political backgrounds who believe in a major role for religion, and the principles of the Enlightenment, and rule of law. This brings the country together.

Hindus need to learn to realize that:

1. We need to have a just and fair society of laws.
2. Unity among Hindus will give India a sense of direction
3. We need to get our house in order and unite as Hindus, so that we can effectively take India forward, and in the future, act as a counterbalance to Islamism, China, and the West, and add stability to the world, by acting as an example of tolerance.
4. The other option, that of not uniting, will merely create a vacuum where the exclusivist(and not modern, liberal) Christian evangelists and Islamists fight over what remains of an agnostic and disunited Hindu society, to further their own exclusivist aims and their mad dash to global domination.
5. To have no identity and no organization, means to have no future.
6. We need to unite behind the best of brand social products, which means that we need to develop meritocratic democratic structures within Hinduism and Hindu society, to put up the best ideas and the best leaders, to take us forward. I am sure our society can produce Churchills and Marlborough's and Voltaires, we have the potential. But the culture needs to be in place, first.

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

Postby shiv » 02 Jan 2008 18:20

Qan Payle wrote:
Pulikeshi wrote:I for one do not believe it is possible to unify the Hindus - what ever that means politically, economically or religiously for an extended time period.


By unity I mean having a shared sense of common identity and a shared sense of pride and belief in certain principles. Even if a large plurality of Hindus are united in this fashion, I think it is enough to cement society.


Hindus will never become a monolithic body. Their bonds are loose. I believe there is a sense of common identity alright, but what sets it apart from say Islam is that Islam itself is an identity.

Hindu is not an identity. It is a loose collection of common streams with great variability.

I believe (without the support of reading or proof) that Hindus identified themselves by their community or sub-caste in the past. Hindus probably divided the world up into "outsiders" and locals who were invariable identified by community/tribe.

When Islam banged its way in, Muslims were probably initially only mlecchas. But after much defeat and dhimmitude, Muslims found acceptance within the Hindu worldview as a community that joined the dozens of existing communities in India. Even today Hindu attitudes to Muslims range between "just another community" to "outsider".

British machinations, and the Hindu civil code seem to have blurred the lines between Hindu communities, but this blurring has not occurred in a vacuum. The blurring has been accompanied by the introduction of a new identity for Hindus: "Indian".

Hindus now (generally) see no distinction between Hindu and Indian. They are willing to allow space for non Hindus in this Indian identity, but I believe a source of conflict is the fact that Muslims have tended to have an "intermediate identity" that inserts itself between themselves and their Indian identity - ie "Muslim".

Let me try and make my thoughts clear. As always these comments are open to correction if they are seen as mistaken by people with different (better) reading

I suspect that 1000 years ago the Hindu saw himself as follows:

I am human - a member of x community
or
I am human - a member of y community

When Muslims came in, they saw all Hindus as:

Human - kafir/Hindu

Hindus saw the Muslim as Human-mleccha initially, but later that was converted to Human-Muslim. But the Hindu continued to see himself as "Human-< some community>

When the British came in they saw "Indians" and these Indians were "Human-Hindu" or "Human-Muslim". With their empire made, they made the residents of India into "Human-Indian-Hindu" or "Human-Indian-Muslim"

Over time the <community> identity of the Hindu became secondary, and that has actually united Hindus behind an "Indian identity". Hindus may still not see themselves as "Hindu" which is a foreign term. But they will certainly identify with India, which they find synonymous with the Bharat of their history.. This, I believe is the biggest power that India wields. A number of Indic people may not strictly classify themselves as Hindu, but they will swear by India. They see no conflict and absolute fitting of their former communal identity with an "Indian" identity.

So what does the Muslim see himself as?

I have no issue with the Muslim who sees Himself as Human-Indian-Muslim. but I have a problem with the Muslim who sees himself as Human-Muslim first. History has shown that the identity "Human-Muslim" with no allegiance to India/Bharat is a disruptive threat. Such a person must be viewed with suspicion in my rule book. A person who does not feel allegiance to the land of India as a unique geographical-social-cultural identity cannot be totally Indian. It's not for nothing that we have expressions like "sacred land" and "mathru bhoomi" that have come down the ages.

Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5805
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Postby Vikas » 02 Jan 2008 18:46

Shiv,
Didn't Hindu actually meant Indian.In the beginning there was no Hindu who was not Indian and vice versa.That is how the word Hindu came into being.
Same probably is true for Muslims also.Thats why I guess most of the muslims try to pass themselves as Arab descendent because somewhere in there mind it is ingrained that Muslim means Arab.Atleast as far as Muslims of the sub-continent are concerned.
If that being the case, you will always have that extra-territorial loyalty and add to it the fact that Ummah in Islam is stronger than nation state bounderies, you have receipe for perfect storm.
Right now I guess we are simply trying to avoid those pressure points which would trigger such loyalities.
Hence no asking of hard questions by intellectuals and media.
We may win few battles here and there but Unless we face the truth and understand the real nature of the beast there is no way this war can be won.

Qan Payle
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 11 Dec 2007 14:23

Postby Qan Payle » 02 Jan 2008 19:35

The Indian subcontinent and its inhabitants have always identified themselves first as either belonging to X Janpad, or Y Mahajanpad. If they were Brahmins they would identify themselves for example as: I am Amuk Brahmin from XY Village in Taxila Janpad, pupil of PQR, or landlord of IJK Village, if landed and wealthy.

In later days, due to the introduction of notions of 'gotra's', or belonging to the tutelage line of one of the Vedic Seers(Bhardwaja, Gotama, Vishwamitra, Vasishsta, etc.), instead of saying who his tutor was, he would mention his gotra, and the land he belonged to(even the Janpad had changed into kingdoms ruled by newly consecrated Rajput or Kushana or newly raised Vaishya Kshatriyas who had almost as old a lineage as the original Kshatriya rulers).

For the lay Dvija, gotra and land remained important. However, there was this idea of being one of the people, an Arya, or a Noble. Sakyamuni Gautam Buddha, and Samkhya teachers such as Vachaspati Mishra(one of the greatest scholars India has ever produced) expounding in the Mahabharata, and the Gita, expanded the Arya framework to anyone who displayed correct conduct, therefore allowing the expansion of the Arya adjective and its application to virtually anyone who venerated the Veda, and who paid respect to Brahmins and renunciates.

There has also been the common thread of the Sanskrit language, let us not forget. We can either say that Hindus are many peoples, and we can just as easily say we are one people. For the sake of political survival we should say we are one.

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

Postby shiv » 02 Jan 2008 19:46

VikasRaina wrote:Shiv,
Didn't Hindu actually meant Indian.In the beginning there was no Hindu who was not Indian and vice versa.That is how the word Hindu came into being.


Vikas I personally have no doubt about this.

But the reason I rub it in with long winded arguments is because "academics" of various hues have doubted BOTH the existence of "Hindu" and the existence of an "Indian" before British India.

Actually both were there, and the same, albeit in a loose conceptual manner and not as in "Modern nation state".

That doubt is still being used in arguments that encourage fission, but not only do I see the arguments being swept away, I also foresee that the people who made those arguments will made to eat the very crap they produced. But that is a little way off.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1441
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Postby Pulikeshi » 02 Jan 2008 22:09

shiv wrote:Maybe a redefinition of dharma needs to be enunciated in the light of experience gained with the onslaught of adharmic faiths that arose and thrived in the weak spots that were undefended by dharma. Let gyan move forward and not remain based only on what was known at some earlier time.


You nailed what I am suggesting!
Dharma not in its now ******** meaning - my religious duty!

The original form of Dharma - was Dhr (root) to support to make society stable. There is not much "religious" meaning here.
This does not mean we need to renounce our history or religion, just a renewal based on it.
I read "Sanathana Dharma" to mean "The eternal path that supports society" and thus can be reinterpreted as society evolves.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20886
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 03 Jan 2008 00:54

New meaning of Dharma is Bharat Raksha
( it contains all the social , religious,political and economic issues . Just like Porus ,Alexander diologue )

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

Postby shiv » 05 Jan 2008 17:04

I wrote two articles for another board, and I will cross post parts of them here as both are relevant to this thread.

I foresee two different types of forces coming into conflict and I want to point that out. The first is a brief description of Islamic societies, in a summary of what we have seen on the Islamism threads. After that is a longer opinion piece on what I see happening to Hindus.

Both open for debate:

What's up with Islam?

Islamic society seems to have the following characteristics:

1) Tends to create congregations/collections of Muslims within an area. The area is pure, the outside is alien.

2) There is a constant drive to purify the "inside" of that collection. Since there is no agreement about the purest state of Islam (except the situation that existed at the time of the Prophet and the four "rightly guided" caliphs) Islamic society ends up with a lot of infighting. Since death as punishment is allowed, there is a lot of killing as well as Islamic society tries to purify itself.

3) The pure Islamic society sinks into a morass of infighting until an Islamic despot comes to power and rules with an iron hand.

This model is repeated over and over and over again in Islamic states and is visible even now.

Islam needs non Muslims to survive in stability. In the original context, (at the time of the Prophet and soon after that) non Muslims were required for conquest, loot and slaves. But in the modern era - it seems that Muslims can survive without killing each other and suppressing one group or the other ONLY when the Muslim group is outnumbered by non Muslims.

When existing in a situation in which Muslims are outnumbered by non Muslims, Islamic society collects up in pockets that I have described as "oil droplets". Islamic society adjusts to a state in which it is dominated by non Muslims. That allows some Muslims to be free of the restrictions of Islam while continuing to be Muslim. External laws restrict the most despotic mullahs who apply sharia. This society will constantly complain that things are wrong and that Islam should be imposed. This outnumbered Muslim society will be full of grievances because islam tells them that society is unislamic and therefore wrong.

If non Muslims get totally outnumbered in this society, "pure Islam" will take over and eliminate the non Muslims first and then seek to purify Islamic society, which then sinks into the state that I described above, until a despot comes to power.

The most rabid Islamist Muslims of India formed their own "United States of Pakistan"

You can now see the way it is headed.

if you look at India (or the UK or Europe), you find Muslims collected together in large colonies which I have called oil droplets. Surrounded by non Muslims, these communities are full of grievances about the non Muslims, no matter how happy their situation really may be.

India formed a unique colony for Islam in which Islam actually gelled into a kind of loose bond with kafir Hindus. This is a situation that should not be destroyed. It is wrong to say that only resurgent Hindus are a threat to this. As much of a threat to this society are constant grievances supported by funds and ideology from abroad to cause Muslims to fight against "injustice". I am not saying that there is no injustice to Muslims. I want to point out that from a pure islamic standpoint, the existence of any non Muslim itself is "injustice" unless he is a dhimmi.

This was the original "injustice" that led to the formation of Pakistan. One look at Pakistan tells us one direction that we DO NOT want to go.



Hindus: The article is somewhat truncated - hence may seem odd

Which way are Hindus headed?

Hindu society, about 1000 years ago when the first Islamic invasions took place was splintered up into group (community) identity and loyalty. There was some general agreement on what was holy and where the Holy Hindu places lay, but no "unity". Surprisingly even the sort of "national unity" called for by a nation state such as Britain in WW2 would appear like fascism from the viewpoint of a splintered Hindu society of the sort that existed then. When Islam came in, it was not opposed as a religion, and when it settled into India, Muslims just became "one more community" with "yet another God" in India like Madhwa brahmins or Vokkaligas or Counders. In fact this was how the British found India.

But the education fostered by the British, followed by India's Hindu civil code has to a very large extent rendered caste and community splintering among Hindus irrelevant. For the first time in millennia, or perhaps for the first time in history, Hindus are beginning to look like a monolithic body who search for similarities rather than differences. The similarities are often pooh poohed as non existent, but the new found Hindu solidarity is built around undoubted commonality of history and worldview. If you look at it objectively, it hardly makes sense to deny that there is some unity. Hindus were seen from the outside as one group, but close study revealed fragmentation. With measures to reduce that fragmentation having been in place for decades if not centuries it is hardly surprising that fragmentation is being replaced by solidarity.

But whether anyone acknowledges this new solidarity or not will be immaterial if Hindu solidarity comes and bites all its detractors with a vengeance.

Hindus in India form a vast majority and form the bulk of the forces leading to economic and social change. There is an increasing sense in India that Hindus have been given a raw deal in history. Cynicism for a Western view of history that was expressed with a shake of the head and resignation when I was a boy is now being thought of as points that need to be corrected by ramming facts down ignorant throats by brute force - a brute force that Hindus are set to acquire. These feelings are not restricted merely to what is fashionably described as the "right wing" but is supported among many "moderate" educated Hindus that I meet across the board. The same people who used to shake their heads with resignation about the ignorance of an Indian view in the past now are eager to see a ramming down of information by brute force, and will not oppose that if it happens. And Indians are getting a chance to do just such ramming down of information day in and day out starting from the most unexpected areas.

In my mind, nowhere is that going to be more significant in the relationship of Hindus with "minority" religions in India.

India occupies a unique place in the world. In which other country would 140 odd million people be a "minority"? The world, thus far, has never had to deal with such numbers and does not have the jargon to cope with such concepts. The "world" may not have such concepts but people in India read and digested these things long before the world.

When the movement for independence started it became expedient for both the British, and the Ashraf (former ruling class) among Muslims to state that several hundred million people should not become a "minority", as they would if things were not changed. Hundreds of millions of Muslims, it was theorized, formed a separate nation, unified by Islam. This runaway thought process led to the formation of Pakistan which I believe was a good thing for India just as the amputation of a gangrenous limb is "good". Pakistan has been uncovering the unity, peace and egalitarianism of Islam for 60 years now, but that is a separate issue.

What is pertinent to my viewpoint is that Islam before the British came was "one more community" in India. Splintered Hindus hardly saw Islam as anything else. A new religion was never a problem from the viewpoint of Indians whose disputes lay elsewhere.

And despite the arguments posed by various groups, no country in the world other than India allows Muslims to live in their various hues as freely as it is possible in India. No country in the world has allowed, indeed forced Shias, Sunnis and Ahmedis to live side by side without letting one dominate or decimate the other. Not even Pakistan, where Sunni Islam with a Salafi and Wahhabi flavor are dominating Shias, having eliminated Ahmedis as non Muslims. Not even Iraq, where the removal of Saddam's iron fist has provoked Shia-Sunni conflict. No country in the world freely allows the mullah dominated Muslim girl to walk around unquestioned in a burqa side by side with another Muslim girl who is allowed to flash her skin on TV or in the media without being killed, while allowing fatwas to be made, but making them fall by harmlessly. We do have a unique thing going, and it must not be either misconstrued or misused.

The newly united and empowered Hindus recognise all this, and resent being misrepresented. One of the biggest problems that India is going to have to cope with is a huge dominant, wealthy and vociferous class of Hindus who do not look kindly on being fed half truths and lies, or being blamed for some excesses without a concomitant "honest and open" identification of factors that are seen as excesses against Hindus.

Hindus are not innocent of excesses and what bothers me is that they will not give a damn about even appearing to be innocent if the rage building up within is not brought out into the open and addressed frankly and freely. And the rage is building up on several counts, one factor feeding the other. The Indian constitution and the Hindu civil code were aimed at moderating the overwhelming force of the Hindu majority while reducing their fissiparous traits. The "minority" religions, particularly Islam, were left untouched, and protected by constitutional guarantees.

Internal Hindu fission having now been made relatively quiescent, it is increasingly becoming apparent that the burden of "secularism" is placed on Hindu shoulders far more that that required from "minority religions" Islam and Christianity. I will not go into the detailed arguments to show why this is so from a constitutional viewpoint, but for now trust me that this is true and seen to be true by an increasing number of Hindus.

I would rather not see this spill over into violence, as has happened more than once before. Things can be contained and settled. But what is required is a recognition of the direction in which society has moved and an acknowledgement that the feelings and emotions expressed from all sides must be given equal airing in debate, without dismissing one side as "extremism" and highlighting the other side as "victim". That is a game that two can play and it will lead only to violence. And in a massively Hindu majority India, there are no prizes for guessing who will bear the brunt of the violence.


Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4188
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Postby Murugan » 05 Jan 2008 18:12

Rampur terror attack:

two CRPF jawans arrested.

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/up-terror-a ... 529-3.html

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4188
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Postby Murugan » 05 Jan 2008 18:17

Hindus: The article is somewhat truncated - hence may seem odd

Which way are Hindus headed?


Gurudev, Bahut Sahi likha hai.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50616
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 05 Jan 2008 21:35

Shiv, More power to your pen. Keep it going. next you should develop how Hindu dhimmis feed the Hindu rage and need to be re-educated for the good of the nation.

Your oil droplet theory is well documented in every little Muslim community in the US. Muslims have grievances real or imaginary against non-Muslim society. In Northern California there was case of a missing female medical professional who just vanished. There was a huge search and rescue effort but of no avail. Meantime Muslim notables would say the police were not doing enough because she was a Muslim and a woman. Turns out the lady drove off into a pier as she was disoriented. After that no apology or thanks to the police for diverting their resources from fighting crime(its high murder rate) to search for a person who shouldn't have a driving license. there was thanks for the community for raising a hue and cry.

A Hollywood pot boiler "The Kingdom" has a good five minute intro to the problems of KSA which is the Islamists attacking the moderates for not being Islamic enough.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50616
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 05 Jan 2008 22:16

A DIE's lament. Deccan Chronicle 5 Jan, 2008

1857 is jinxed

By Akhilesh Mithal


Perhaps the number Eighteen Fifty-Seven is jinxed. This year, 2007, marking the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Great Uprising of Indians appeared an appropriate time to remember an India which had evolved into a haven of a rich and resplendent multi-faceted culture in which all inputs were received without awkwardness and adapted to accord its native genius of making the end product part of a seamless whole.

Many Itihaas columns addressed the subject. Readers responded by inviting the columnist to talk on 1857 from Hyderabad (Deccan), Pakistan and London. The Itihaas column for 23rd December, an attempt to overcome the amnesia about 1857 (Eighteen Fifty-Seven) came out with an error in the headline. 1857 was printed 18—4-7!

The Government of India is said to have spent one hundred and twenty five crores on the commemoration. What is the effect? Has national consciousness quickened? Are martyrs remembered and venerated on days made sacred by their sacrifice? Take the date 23rd of December.

On this date in 1912 the Viceroy was to make a "State Entry" into Delhi for initiation of work on the new Imperial Capital. Lord Hardinge indulged himself by emulating the Mughal Emperors by a juloos –a procession through Shahjahan’s Dillee, himself accompanied by the Vicerine riding on top of the tallest elephant he could commandeer from the puppet Princes ruling the states. Above his head was a Chhatra canopy, an insignia of royalty adopted by the Mughals when they became Indian and gave up the leather clothes, knee high boots and furs we see in portraits of Babur and Humayun — in exchange for cotton turbans, bagal-bandi ja’amas and open jooties worn by Indian Rajas.

The culmination of the Hardinge extravaganza was to be a darbar in the Deewan-ey-Khaas where the feringhee would ape the Grand Mughals.

For Dilleewaalaas the whole exercise was adding insult to the outrage and injury of 1857. As the procession passed the Clock Tower and came to the Punjab National Bank building a bomb burst with a deafening report between the silver throne on which the Hardinges were seated and the chhatra bearer. The thick metal took the brunt and saved the Viceroy.

A shrapnel got through to cause a four inch long wound which exposed the shoulder blade. The right side of the neck and the hip were also injured. Hardinge lost consciousness and had to be removed from his mount. The chhatra bearer Mahabir Singh of Balarampur State, specially chosen for his height and bearing, was killed as there was nothing between him and the bomb. Despite huge rewards being offered no trace could be found of those responsible for the bomb blast

Raids and searches continued until 19th February 1914 when a search of Awadh Behari’s house uncovered seditious literature, material for making bombs and formulae for manufacturing poison. A leaflet extolling the attempt on Hardinge found states

"The Gita, Vedas and the Quran all enjoin us to kill all enemies of the Motherland, irrespective of caste creed or colour….Leaving aside other great and small things the special manifestation of Divine Force (shakti) in December last proved beyond doubt that the destiny of India is being moulded by God Himself."

Awadh Behari, Amir Chand Basant Kumar Biswas and Balmukund were the names of those arrested arraigned and hanged. As can be seen the spirit of 1857 and "Indianness" beyond communal (Hindu/Muslim) barriers was alive and kicking even in 1912-14. The path chosen was violence — Gandhi eschewed it in the next decade but that is another story for another column.

As long as the Ibney Macaulay inferiority complex remains (e.g. a Prime Minister of India states in 2007 "Cambridge made me") and the Indian government continues to inhabit "Georgeaabaad" which is the name George V wanted to give what was to become New Delhi — the spirit of 1857 cannot be resurrected.

Narendra Modi’s election victory highlights the failure of India’s rulers (and especially the Congress) in re-establishing Indian self-esteem. Gujarati self-esteem has to merge into the larger Indian self-esteem to lose the shrapnel edges it bares for Muslims and Christians. Communalism can and must be wiped out. It is a poison injected into India by the British. We have to unlearn in order to learn. Somnath was not the richest, tallest or most sacred temple despoiled. Romila Thapar’s book needs to be read and its findings propagated. The Congress cannot act as the B team of BJP and expect to win. Itihaas wishes all readers a Happy 2008 and ends 2007 with the hope that rulers will read more history and talk less nonsense.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 05 Jan 2008 22:27

Worst advice ever
Romila Thapar’s book needs to be read and its findings propagated.

sanjaychoudhry
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
Location: La La Land

Postby sanjaychoudhry » 05 Jan 2008 22:30

This Mittal is a rabid commie historian, regularly spewing vitriol on BJP and "Sangh Parivar". I have been reading his columns in Asian Age and the dude makes me puke.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 05 Jan 2008 23:01

What else do you expect from Mittal. The column is ridiculous and citing Romila Thapar as an expert on Indian history to boot. Gee wow. Who's next, Karl Marx on India? And note the elitist contempt for Gujaratis, both about their identity and Somnath. What a jerk.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 06 Jan 2008 03:34



Return to “Strategic & Security Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest