Tackling Islamic Extremism in India - 5

[ShauryaT]

Shiv, this soul will go further.

http://indianmuslims.in/where-do-indian ... from-here/

My responses, for what they are worth:

Most Muslim rulers and their noblemen in India forsook the ethos of the West Asian nations of their origin and integrated themselves with the culture and soil of India to create the Indo-Islamic civilization. Much as in ancient times the Aryans of central Asia integrated themselves with the same Indian soil to develop the Hindu civilization.

The "Aryans of central Asia" business is a lie. That "history" has now been rubbished. Note that if Mr Kallem Kawaja can quote history that is convenient to his viewpoint, why be concerned but "injustices" being done to Muslims using similarly distorted history

Not only is AIT a lie but the view that the Moghuls and Turks integrated themselves in the Indian soil is not true. Right till Aurangzeb and before him, Shahjahan, Jehangir, Akbar and before were proud of ther Turkic ancestry. The language of the court in those times was Persian. Their key henchmen were mostly a whole category of noblemen, mostly with Turkish Ancestry, also popularly categorized as the Ashrafs.

Indian Muslims are justifiably proud of their Indo-Islamic heritage.

No Doubt No doubt.
But most Hindus too are justifiably proud of their Indic heritage.

Is the partition of India an example of that?

It can not be forgotten that a majority of Muslims in the provinces that remained in India supported Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Valabbahi Patel and Maulana Azad in their opposition to the partitioning of India.

Sir. The Muslim majority provinces voted for the Muslim league. Some of those provinces still remain very backward.

The 1946 elections disprove the view that a majority of Muslims in the provinces that remained in India supported ....

However soon after independence in 1947 Muslims in India found themselves the victims of the backlash of the formation of Pakistan, an action that they had opposed strongly. They found themselves excluded from the mainstream and suspect in their nationalism, in the midst of people with whom they had grown up as youngsters.

True. But look at the Hindu viewpoint. The Hindu could survive ONLY if he chose India. The Muslim in 1947 was free to choose to live in India or Pakistan. And for years it was not clear to Hindus whether a given Muslim would choose this nation or that. The Hindu was restricted, not the Muslim. The Hindu was restricted from living or visiting what had been part of his land. The Muslim was given rights in india and would be welcome in Pakistan.

False. Hindus are not stupid and bigoted and do not follow any exclusivist ideology to suspect muslims on filmsy grounds. The fact of the matter is the ACTIONS of the muslims as a WHOLE spoke volumes about their ideology than any spin on the facts of the events today.

As for the Kashmir problem, it is not a Hindu-Muslim problem. It is the result of years of mismanagement by successive governments in New Delhi and Srinagar, that allowed the festering impoverishment and deprivation of Kashmiris to acquire an anti-national color.

Maybe correct sir. Maybe correct. But there is a Hindu viewpoint too. "Years of mismanagement" includes the ethnic cleansing of Hindu pandits by Muslims, so it's a little lie to say that there was no Hindu-Muslim problem there. Another little lie is the complaint that partition made Indian Muslims suspect in an earlier paragraph, and quietly forgetting that Pakistanis, who, for Hindus were "people with whom they had grown up as youngsters." made every effort to portray Kashmir as a Hindu Muslim problem. How can an Indian Muslim conveniently deny that there was no "Hindu-Muslim problem" in Kashmir?

Far from any notion of mismanagement, it is the appeasement of the muslim population of J&K (article 370 is one example) that has led to the current state of affairs in Kashmir. The Kashmir problem would not exist, if it was not a Hindu-Muslim problem. It is nothing BUT a Hindu-Muslim issue.

Muslims in India have no leadership worth its name, no coherent direction and no roadmap to break out of their sixty year old state- of- siege.

It is another lie to say that Muslims do not have leaders. When Muslims do not have leaders they go to the ulema and follow what the ulema say. That is part of the problem. There are plenty of Hindu leaders to follow. One has to learn to trust at least some of them. They are telling Muslims what to do, but Muslims do not follow them. Tell the truth sir, are Muslims taught, or are they not taught to distrust non Muslims?

Why on earth should muslims in TN have the same leaders as muslims in UP? Why on earth at a national level President APJ Abdul Kalam, not be the nation's leader for all? Why on earth do muslims need a SEPARATE national leadership in the SINGLE UNITED and INDIVISIBLE nation of India?

If the Muslims are trying to retain their Indo-Islamic identity then so are all major ethnic groups in India. Punjabi Hindus have very different social practices than Tamil Hindus; Bengali Hindus have totally different social practices than the Gujarati Hindus; UP/Bihar Hindus have completely different cultural practices than the Andhra Pradesh Hindus. So why should mainstream India interpret the attempts of the Indian Muslims to retain their distinct identity as lack of integration and nationalism? Why not lend a helping hand to help break their state-of-siege?

Yes, yes yes Sir. But you forget that all these Punjabi, Tamil and UP/Bihar Hindus - with all their differences, share in Indic culture. Can Muslims show that they share that Indic culture too? After all that indic culture has been dissed, criticized and trashed. Pakistan has tried to reject it, and you too are denying it by pretending that all these Hindus are different. Yes they are different - but the link is Indic culture boss. It has survived and will thrive. Why do you choose to deny that it is present?

There is a very simple reason to DENY the muslims this political identity. Experience teaches the Hindus that the last time Muslims were provided with this separate identity in British Indian, by way of separate electorates, the result was the division of the Nation. Hindus, who have forgotten this lesson are fools.

[ShauryaT]

.
There are many good Individual Muslims who are loyal to motherland and has sacrificed for India but as a community Islam demands loyality to Ummah and not to mother country. All these shenanigans to prove the Indian roots are just plain untrue.
Kwaja will serve his community better by being honest and telling the truth that there is nothing Indian about Islamic religious,social, cultural, philosophical practices . As convert to Non Indian dogma , all the major personalities and priniciples of Islamic people in India have alien roots . Indian is the Holy Land of Indics not of Islam and all that is Indic has the right to be predominant over non Indic ethos in India .

Prem: Some good souls might object to the last part in the name of "secularism". Which to them means that state does not take sides. Seemingly Noble. Even if we accept that argument, does not mean that the state does not believe in God. If the answer is No, then are the citizen's of the state OK, with the notion that they have pledged their loyalty to a Godless state.

Ofcourse the folks touting Secularism, want to stay miles away from these seemingly vexed questions.

Let us say, that the state is saying, I do not believe in God, but that does not mean that people cannot believe in their version of their God in the private space.

So, by definition, the state has restricted the FREE practise of faith, compounded further by the state's determiniation to tightly and intrusively control all walks of life, by controlling media, education and touting wrong history. By constituting a set of laws seeking to ameliorate the ills of a community, that does not agree to the definition of these ills. A state that seeks to appease its minorities and further the separation of these communities from the mainstream in Indian, instead of integration. A state of dhimmitude and macuaylization that meekly accepts the structure and definitions of an enlightened state from a foreign body.

The result: The current state of affairs in India.

Religion can never be taken out of Politics for both deal with the people. If religion is to be taken out from the affairs of the state, there needs to be an examination, and ask some very basic questions.

Do the religions of India have a common understanding of religion and God. Just because, there is no common understanding, is the best course of action - to remove "religion" from the affairs of the state or to accept one's definition and reject the other. Further, in doing so, is any injustice being done to by taking either course. What is the best course for peace and harmony? what is the best environment in which the individual feel secure and thrive? What is the majority view?

Is there a larger goal for the nation based on our understanding of our purpose in life? Do we doubt these personal goals? Is there an issue, in the natural adoption of some of these goals for the society we live in? Should not these personal goals be in harmony with national goals? Is there a place for spirituality in the life of a nation?

Do we need to rely on more artificial and enforced constructs or are there other ways? An examination of these questions are in order before we jump to ready made solutions manufactured by the west, for their religion and for their experiences with their religion.

[G Subramaniam]

He is the same guy who wrote an article after 9-11
titled
Shed a Tear for the Taliban

[G Subramaniam]

Elections in india have to be won seat by seat and if you plot the muslim % in a seat on the x-axis and effectiveness of the muslim vote bank on the Y axis, the plot will look like a double humped camel

Ascending the first hump , 0-15%
--
As the muslim % gradually increases, the various castes try muslim vote banking
mycaste+muslim = power

Seculars win the seat


Descending the first hump 15% to 30%
-----

Once the muslim % exceeds 15%, riots start, open cow slaughter starts,
eve-teasing of hindu women starts
At this point the various castes start to drift towards BJP
BJP wins seats like Bhopal, Philibit, etc which are 20% to 25% muslim very easily

Ascending the second hump, 30% to 45%
-----
Hindus consolidate around BJP, muslims start violent booth capturing
severe riots and the area becomes an ISI nest

BJP wins a consolidated hindu vote with small margins against muslim candidate
Nagaon, Mangaldoi are 40% muslim and won by BJP

By the time muslims reach 40%, thanks to superior mob action in booth capturing, muslims start to win the seat


Descending the second hump, 45% to 100%
----
Remaining hindus vote BJP,
Muslims win the seat
hindus start to leave area due to slow ethnic cleansing

However, this is in fact a political decline for muslims
The reason being anything over 40% vote in a seat is surplus and wasted and not able to affect other seats

[Anindya]

GS - document this in a picture with clear labels and sub-text. Scan it in or sent it by email to someone who can. The message will carry a lot further than your words and posts.

Just my two cents.

[SSridhar]

HuJI and the Indian Connection - B. Raman

[surinder]

Elections in india have to be won seat by seat and if you plot the muslim % in a seat on the x-axis and effectiveness of the muslim vote bank on the Y axis, the plot will look like a double humped camel

Ascending the first hump , 0-15%
--
As the muslim % gradually increases, the various castes try muslim vote banking
mycaste+muslim = power

Seculars win the seat


Descending the first hump 15% to 30%
-----

Once the muslim % exceeds 15%, riots start, open cow slaughter starts,
eve-teasing of hindu women starts
At this point the various castes start to drift towards BJP
BJP wins seats like Bhopal, Philibit, etc which are 20% to 25% muslim very easily

Ascending the second hump, 30% to 45%
-----
Hindus consolidate around BJP, muslims start violent booth capturing
severe riots and the area becomes an ISI nest

BJP wins a consolidated hindu vote with small margins against muslim candidate
Nagaon, Mangaldoi are 40% muslim and won by BJP

By the time muslims reach 40%, thanks to superior mob action in booth capturing, muslims start to win the seat


Descending the second hump, 45% to 100%
----
Remaining hindus vote BJP,
Muslims win the seat
hindus start to leave area due to slow ethnic cleansing

However, this is in fact a political decline for muslims
The reason being anything over 40% vote in a seat is surplus and wasted and not able to affect other seats

G. Subramanian:

A picture is worth a 1000 words. Please make a graphic and post it. This is a masterpiece that explains so much.

One corallary: THere are two inflection points. One at 15%, second one at 40%. First one is a threshold where Muslims cannot be ignored (must pandered to). Second one is where Bierut strikes. This is the beginning of the end for the non-Muslims. India is past the 15% point. France is getting there. UK will be there shortly.

One more observation: THese numbers are not fundamental. In a divided society like India, Hindu votes are split. But in societies like UK and USA, this will definitely play out differently. Israel proper is 20% muslim. Muslims play no role decision making. A united population can handle that high a percentage easily. Sikh were no more than 10% in their kingdom, where Muslims were 70% or so. But were whipped into shape by the Sikh fluency in violence (and absence of voting).

[G Subramaniam]

GS - document this in a picture with clear labels and sub-text. Scan it in or sent it by email to someone who can. The message will carry a lot further than your words and posts.

Just my two cents.

Please make your own picture
I dont know how to do it

[G Subramaniam]

Elections in india have to be won seat by seat and if you plot the muslim % in a seat on the x-axis and effectiveness of the muslim vote bank on the Y axis, the plot will look like a double humped camel

Ascending the first hump , 0-15%
--

Seculars win the seat


Descending the first hump 15% to 30%
-----

Once the muslim % exceeds 15%, riots start, open cow slaughter starts,
eve-teasing of hindu women starts
At this point the various castes start to drift towards BJP


Ascending the second hump, 30% to 45%
-----
Hindus consolidate around BJP, muslims start violent booth capturing
severe riots and the area becomes an ISI nest

BJP wins a consolidated hindu vote with small margins against muslim candidate


Descending the second hump, 45% to 100%
----
Remaining hindus vote BJP,
Muslims win the seat
hindus start to leave area due to slow ethnic cleansing


G. Subramanian:

A picture is worth a 1000 words. Please make a graphic and post it. This is a masterpiece that explains so much.

One corallary: THere are two inflection points. One at 15%, second one at 40%. First one is a threshold where Muslims cannot be ignored (must pandered to).

----

Actually the first inflection point is when muslim action , thanks to muslims starting to riot too early, provokes violent hindu reaction
Maulana Wahidudin Khan writes that muslims start to riot when they reach 15% and then are crushed by hindu retaliation

The first inflection point is where vote banking starts to end and the second inflection point is the point of no-return

---

Second one is where Bierut strikes. This is the beginning of the end for the non-Muslims. India is past the 15% point. France is getting there. UK will be there shortly.

---
Correct. if muslims reach second inflection point, kafirs are doomed.
However, In residual India, muslims will never exceed 19%



So my model predicts that muslim premature rioting will cause BJP to be in the sweet spot--

--
In Akhand Islamistan, I predict muslims will stabilise at 37%, dangerously close to the second inflection point, by 2060, which is why we must oppose reunification--

One more observation: THese numbers are not fundamental. In a divided society like India, Hindu votes are split.

---
My inflection points take into account the divided nature of hindu society, which is forced into bajrang dal mode, thanks to low level muslim rioting
otherwise muslim votes are irrelevant until they reach 45% in a seat---


But in societies like UK and USA, this will definitely play out differently.

---

That is correct, their societies are too pc infected, but in UK you start to see the BNP gaining in areas where muslims exceed 15%

--

Israel proper is 20% muslim. Muslims play no role decision making. A united population can handle that high a percentage easily.

---
That is correct. However, as I pointed out, that increased muslim % leads to increased islamic rioting which leads to kafir unity
For example in West Bengal 2004, in Krishnagar, BJP got 40% of the vote
The seat was won by a muslim from CPI-M. The seat has 40% muslims
---

Sikh were no more than 10% in their kingdom, where Muslims were 70% or so. But were whipped into shape by the Sikh fluency in violence (and absence of voting).

--
The islamic inflection points and critical mass depend on kafir unity and militancy, but nevertheless the limits exist.

For a pacifist caste, 5% muslims may be critical mass, whereas for sikhs the critical mass may be 65% muslim. In general hindu society, 30% muslim is considered critical mass. Law enforcement considers districts with over 30% muslim as 'communally sensitive'

[archan]

A quick 'n' dirty attempt:

[Sanku]

How to tackle Islamism -- as per current GoI

Taslima's visa yet to be renewed

Taslima's visa yet to be renewed


The Union Ministry of Home Affairs has informed dissident Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen, kept under constant watch at a 'safe house' in the National Capital Region, that no decision has yet been taken to extend her visa, which expires on February 17.

Nasreen, disallowed all contacts with friends and barred from stepping out, even to receive the Prix Simone de Beauvoir from French President Nicolas Sarkozy while he was in Delhi, is suffering from acute depression made worse by the absence of any news about her visa being extended.

She had to be admitted to the CCU at AIIMS on January 26 after her blood pressure plummeted. "I had requested for a cardiologist earlier that day as I was not feeling well, but apparently no doctor was willing to come to the 'third house' where I was to be checked," Nasreen told The Pioneer.

"Finally, a (Government) doctor came and prescribed me three medicines. After I took those medicines, I fainted and fell down," the writer added. Nasreen was then taken to AIIMS and admitted to the CCU where doctors monitored her blood pressure and stabilised it. She was released on Tuesday.

Nasreen, who holds a MBBS degree and gave up medicine to become a full-time writer, says the drugs that were prescribed to her had "an adverse effect", triggering a violent reaction. "I have now been advised to stop all medication and not worry too much. But how can I stop worrying?", she said.

Last week, a news agency put out a story that Nasreen's visa had been extended. When she asked a Home Ministry official, who is her minder, whether this was true, he told her, "It has not yet been decided."

She now says that although doctors at AIIMS have advised her to "reduce stress", she is constantly stressed.

"Here I am unable to meet anybody, not allowed to talk to friends, step out... I have requested meetings with friends, including a Member of Parliament, in the 'third house' (where she is supposed to meet people), but my requests have not fetched a positive response," Nasreen said.

Nasreen was forced to leave Kolkata, where she had set up home for the past couple of years, after Muslims instigated by a Congress leader, Idris Ali, ran riot on November 21. She was brought to Delhi via Jaipur and has been in the custody of Central security agencies since November 23 in a 'safe house'.

[sum]

Law enforcement considers districts with over 30% muslim as 'communally sensitive'

Is this the official way of declaring a place "communaly sensitive"??
Always wondered how they decide which areas are to be called thus!!!

[shiv]

Elections in india have to be won seat by seat and if you plot the muslim % in a seat on the x-axis and effectiveness of the muslim vote bank on the Y axis, the plot will look like a double humped camel

Ascending the first hump , 0-15%
etc etc < snip >

Let me be the first to question this post on BRF where such doom and gloom "the Mozlems are coming" posts are welcomed and swallowed whole.

The idea is not to reject the information as wrong, but to ask about the methods and data that have been used to arrive at such a conclusion and the dissmisive arrogance against drawing a graph. When the poster cannot even produce a graph to support his opinions when he starts off by speaking of x and y axis etc, (as if he knows how to plot or read a graph) and gives no data - the material must necessarily be put in the "could be trash/could be true" tray until proved one way or other.

Let me explain why it is important to be dharmic - at least with a largely Hindu audience.

In the last iteration of this thread I made a dramatic description of a crowd of anxious relatives of an injured Muslim man outside a hospital and how a little unverified rumor "Lateef is dead" could spark off emotions leading to a riot.

This post on BRF is the exact Hindu equivalent of that - unverified worrying information - and if the post cannot be shown to be accurate - it is a kind of "You farted" information that - over the course of several weeks will become "truth" on this forum.

So much for sanatana dharma - but I am not ruling out anything. Which brings me to the second reason for my objection. Hindus are not morons (at best). At worst they are argumentative and try to nitpick over accuracy - it is the nature of the dharma that makes them that way - even if it may be a weakness.

When apparently shocking information is presented in such a shoddy "take it or leave it. I have said it" manner it will be readily swallowed by everyone who wants to believe it anyway. To that extent it constitutes preaching to the choir. The skeptics are going to blast it to bits unless they can be convinced - leaving a few who may never be convinced. But at least an effort needs to be made to show how this information has been gleaned from existing facts or trends. Instead of that I see arrogant dismissal. Surely a tit for tat is in order.

If the post is intended to create Hindu unity by means of scaremongering - I give it 3 on 10.

[shiv]

Another point I would like to make is about the posting of dozens of lists of statistics that give a type of "learned academic" color to a post.

I see that the trend of those lists has been pretty simple and without wasting too much time I sould be able to sum up the statistics I have seen so far in 3 lines

1) Muslims are proliferating rapidly
2) Their population will soon cross a critical point
3) After it reaches a critical point they will ask for another Pakistan

Fine. Let me accept all these conclusions as accurate, based on the particular statistics that I will also accept as being accurate. I think that if we agree on these 3 points - let's put a stop to these statistics and graphs (unless there is new and different infomation"

The question that comes to my mind is:

so what?

So what if all this is going to happen. One way of looking at it is: "OK. So if it's going to happen it's going to happen"

What is anyone going to do about it?

One of my reasons for starting this thread was to see if anyone can come up with any bright ideas about a way forward that is good, and now let me add the word "Dharmic" to that. Good and dharmic way forward.

But what I see is more of same. Doom and gloom predictions. We KNOW that on BRF. Someone come up with something new. Please.

Does this actually mean that Hindus love wallowing in their own gloom scenarios without putting in any effort to say what may be a good way forward? And I am not talking about useless time wasting pursuits like howling "Hindus unite!"

Hindus DO NOT unite just because some joker wants them to unite. They unite over much more sublime causes. Has anyone even tried to pause from the doom and gloom caterwauls to try and see what clicks with Hindus who seem to remember their dharma a lot better than many of us do on this forum?

[vsudhir]

Does this actually mean that Hindus love wallowing in their own gloom scenarios without putting in any effort to say what may be a good way forward? And I am not talking about useless time wasting pursuits like howling "Hindus unite!"

Not necessarily true - damage assessment logically precedes damage control. Damage reversal, that stage ain't reached yet.

The dharmic way forward?

1. An open, above-ground movement to reforming the constitution to make it dharma-friendly. Will Hindus unite around this ideal? I don't know. I hope so. So far, we've seen awareness of the problem break through into the mainstream for possibly the first time post'47. IMVHO of course. The best bet for being the political agent of change is the BJP but its a stretch to expect them to do it all even if they make the next sarkar in Dilli.

2. An open above-ground social movement that disowns caste as a hierarchial concept. Folks coming fwd voluntarily to sign a petition saying they renounce their caste and that of others. Temples offering special puja to complete the castelessness ritual. Offer everybody the janjam (sacred thread) like the ISKCONites do.
This is certainly possible but I see no agent of social change, save perhaps the Sangh parivar's graddaddy RSS who could even conceive of something like this.

3. An open, above ground movement to spread truth in academia, in schools and history departments about our past history. Very difficult IMO and here we'll face entrenched opposition. If point 1 goes through, then Hindu edu institutions can be a focal point, Hindu temple finds can be another leg of support in this mammoth project.

Maybe, am going off on a tangent regarding the thread topic. Perhaps doc has something else in mind. Whatever be the case, these are my thoughts.

/Have a nice day all.

[shiv]

The dharmic way forward?

1. An open, above-ground movement to reforming the constitution to make it dharma-friendly. Will Hindus unite around this ideal? I don't know. I hope so. So far, we've seen awareness of the problem break through into the mainstream for possibly the first time post'47. IMVHO of course. The best bet for being the political agent of change is the BJP but its a stretch to expect them to do it all even if they make the next sarkar in Dilli.

2. An open above-ground social movement that disowns caste as a hierarchial concept. Folks coming fwd voluntarily to sign a petition saying they renounce their caste and that of others. Temples offering special puja to complete the castelessness ritual. Offer everybody the janjam (sacred thread) like the ISKCONites do.
This is certainly possible but I see no agent of social change, save perhaps the Sangh parivar's graddaddy RSS who could even conceive of something like this.

3. An open, above ground movement to spread truth in academia, in schools and history departments about our past history. Very difficult IMO and here we'll face entrenched opposition. If point 1 goes through, then Hindu edu institutions can be a focal point, Hindu temple finds can be another leg of support in this mammoth project.

Maybe, am going off on a tangent regarding the thread topic. Perhaps doc has something else in mind. Whatever be the case, these are my thoughts.

/Have a nice day all.

vsudhir - I think this is a great post. It lays down some aims.

But I have some further comments. The aims you have laid down are similar to the aims that we have been coming to on this thread from other people who are posting here. In fact I requested Shaurya to post his views on constitutional changes as a separate article.

But the interesting and curious fact about your post is that it says nothing specific about Islam or Muslims. I would call it a very honest and dharmic post that says what you feel within.

But your suggestions, taken with other suggestions indicate a strange phenomenon on this thread yet again.

The problems being discussed are about Islamic extremism. And we have had a load of the same old facts about Islam and Muslims (demography, ideology, tactics, behavior) that we have repeated on here for at least 5 years as far as I can recall.

But all solutions revolve around what Hindus should do and how to make the constitution fair to Hindus as well as to others.

There is no adharmic call for eliminating Muslims despite all the hard feelings expressed. This then seems to be a sort of "temperature indicator" of this forum - of what the deepest feelings are among the educated Hindus who come on here. No call for violence. But yet, people who express support for a Hindu viewpoint are accused of extremism themselves.

To me, this goes to show how far Hindus have been wronged. It shows how far people have gone to paint Hindus as extremists when the answer to all the wrongs is nowhere near the "Kill Kill KIll" that one hears from the Quran on the enemies of islam.

One very strong feeling I get when I interact in this way and hear opinions is that while Christianity and Islam were always at each others throats - history got both forces together in India and both agreed that as per their books and beliefs Hindus are rubbish. That then is the prime feeling of hurt that is once again expressing itself.

For a moment, stop thinking like a Hindu. Think like an Islamist or a Crusader of yore. What would be your solution to the kind of insult poured on you and your people. It would be "Kill 'em all" in my opinion.

Is the act of not killing or not threatening to kill these insulting forces a sign of weakness or is it a sign of civilized enlightenment?

[sanjaykumar]

One very strong feeling I get when I interact in this way and hear opinions is that while Christianity and Islam were always at each others throats - history got both forces together in India and both agreed that as per their books and beliefs Hindus are rubbish. That then is the prime feeling of hurt that is once again expressing itself.


Islam and Christianity are very much on the same intellectual plane and part of the same tradition. Yes historically they have been at each other's throats but in India we witness an unspoken covenant where the monotheistic cults are in a tacit truce for the greater cause of bringing light to the heathen. They should be encouraged to harvest each other's souls.

[Rye]

There are reports of the terrorist group HuJI now operating in Indian and manned by Indian muslims. Short of putting a bullet in the heads of such people and their supporters, how is it possible to force them to owe allegiance to the Indian union? If it is not possible to negotiate with such people, and the islamist mindset makes it clear that negotiation is not in their vocabulary, These Indians have to be killed or incarcerated for life (at taxpayer expense) -- that is the right dharma in this instance. It is either that or all hindus watch as this group of islamists spreads adharma on Indian citizens, hindus and muslims alike, and create animosity between communities.

[Dilbu]

Is the act of not killing or not threatening to kill these insulting forces a sign of weakness or is it a sign of civilized enlightenment?

I believe it is a sign of civilized enlightenment. Violence is not the solution, it is part of the problem. It is not a sign of weakness but the deeper understanding and need for a lasting solution. Though I have read many times on BRF and other places that thorn should be taken by thorn. I gather from my reading on BRF that our concerns are about the radical islam which refuses to fit into the concept of India and its tradition of respecting differences in religion and way of life.

[Rye]

Dilbu wrote:

I believe it is a sign of civilized enlightenment. Violence is not the solution, it is part of the problem.

While that is a nice catchy slogan, in real life, it seems poorly thought out to believe that negotiating peace with a Islamists is a good "solution".

If you did your homework, you would know that Islam engenders a world view where only weaklings negotiate, and thus their willingness to negotiate must be used to gain tactical advantage and further the cause of islam.

[Dilbu]

Dilbu wrote:

I believe it is a sign of civilized enlightenment. Violence is not the solution, it is part of the problem.

While that is a nice catchy slogan, in real life, it seems poorly thought out to believe that negotiating peace with a Islamists is a good "solution".

If you did your homework, you would know that Islam engenders a world view where only weaklings negotiate, and thus their willingness to negotiate must be used to gain tactical advantage and further the cause of islam.

The radical types who dream of 72 houris and bay for the blood of kufrs should be shot in the head. Period.

But radicals are only a small percentage among the followers of islam. We are only adding to the problem by not finding any difference between the normal pissful type and the blood thirsty type and by going on an all out offensive against islam. That turns more pissful types into houri-lovers.What we must be ideally doing is to encourage the moderate voice among the followers of islam. How do we do that is a BIG question. It does not look very practical also.

But tell me if taking a gun and shooting them down till the last man is more practical than this. (And do you believe that is a solution?)

[Rye]

Dilbu wrote:

But radicals are only a small percentage among the followers of islam.

What percentage? 3% 6.5%? Or did you just pull that out of your hat?
No sociologist in India has done a study on this and yet news report after report Indian media states views that are supremely confident that "only a small part is radicalized". That could very well be the case, but the point is that we do not know hot spots of muslim radicalization, because the govt. is afraid to "hurt the islamic sentiments of the islamic community".

But tell me if taking a gun and shooting them down till the last man is more practical than this.

Did I say that? Did you bother to read what I wrote? I said the same thing you did.

The radical types who dream of 72 houris and bay for the blood of kufrs should be shot in the head. Period.

[Dilbu]

What percentage? 3% 6.5%? Or did you just pull that out of your hat?

Just an educated guess I must admit. But seriously there are millions of peaceful followers of the religion out there. If we are looking for a realistic picture we have to consider the moderates and radicals as different groups. That might give us more options and practical solutions than trying to tackle the issue considering whole religion of Islam as the problem.

JMHT

[Rye]

Dilbu wrote:

If we are looking for a realistic picture we have to consider the moderates and radicals as different groups.

But the "muslim moderates" such as (supposedly) Syed Shahabuddin, MJ Akbar, and most prominent muslims blame hindus for radical behaviour of muslims. "Godhra happened because of Ayodhya", "Akshardham happened because of Gujarat", etc. etc.

If moderate muslims are on the side of the radical muslims and are critical of moves against radical muslims, then why should they be considered different groups? Just because some Indians will start feeling very "secular" if the falsehood is perpetrated?

Even recently, one moderate Indian muslim wrote an article that was analyzed on this thread (earlier avatar) where the moderate muslim considered SIMI -- a well known terrorist groups with links to the Lashkar-e-toiba -- a lesser threat to Indians than "hindu fundamentalism".
Why should this moderate muslim be considered by hindus to be "secular" when this moderate muslim is clearly in favour of islamic extremism?

All of these "moderate muslims" and their "secular" hindu friends protested against the labeling of SIMI as a terrorist group and the invocation of the POTA on SIMI. So, really, are these "moderate muslims" and "secular hindus" any better than the islamists if they tacitly wink at islamist behaviour and also place roadblocks in the path of policies to reduce islamism?

JMTs

[Dilbu]

Those who tacitly support radicals are also to be considered as radicals. All I am trying to say is that fighting Islamism is like treating cancer. You have to kill the rogue cells while trying to prevent the spread. If you concentrate only on the killing part, the patient dies.

JMHT

[Rye]

Maybe it would be better stop with medical analogies after describing the problem (and not stretch analogy to pigeonhole the solution) -- cancer is not the same as islamism even if there are similarities. One is a medical condition and another is a social condition...so extrapolating solutions from one domain to another is an exercise in futility.

Many Indian muslims are yet to accept that certain aspects of Islam are responsible for making them uncompetitive in Indian society, and instead they blame hindus for all their ills, while believing that their islamic beliefs are immutable, not to mention divine and correct, so it is always someone else's fault.

Radical imams trained in Pakistan and KSA are allowed to preach their poison all over India and it is the hindus who are blamed in the end.


JMTs.

[G Subramaniam]

1. I lack the computer skills to create the picture

2. It is not a take it or leave it
At India Forum, I have a thread several pages long on the double humped nature of the muslim vote bank, I simply put a summary here

3. As an example in karnataka

In karnataka , muslims are 13% overall, but this is unevenly spread
In coastal karnataka they are 18% and in Mysore they are 5%

BJP sweeps Coastal Karnataka, thanks to endemic muslim low level rioting in places like Bhatkal, ( an ISI nest )
Whereas in Mysore, The Vokkaligas do muslim vote banking with gusto and JD-S wins

4. This is not a scare tactic. Many posters have claimed a linear relationship between muslim % and effectiveness of votebank,
whereas in actuality, between 15% and 40% anti-muslim candidates tend to win

[G Subramaniam]

What percentage? 3% 6.5%? Or did you just pull that out of your hat?

Just an educated guess I must admit. But seriously there are millions of peaceful followers of the religion out there. If we are looking for a realistic picture we have to consider the moderates and radicals as different groups. That might give us more options and practical solutions than trying to tackle the issue considering whole religion of Islam as the problem.

JMHT

Per Daniel Pipes, he estimates 15% as active Jihadists

Assuming a bell curve, another 15% must be secular muslims
leaving 70% as passive jihadists - MJ Akbar, Asghar Ali Engineer etc

--

In the 1946 elections in United India, Jinnah won 86% of the muslim vote

In the 1947 sylhet referendum, India won 15% of the muslim vote

--

Let us look at Hyderabad Nizam Kingdom

In 1941, census, there were 2 million muslims overall
This includes women, children ,old etc

Out of this 2 lakhs joined the Razakars -killing and raping hindus

This 2 lakhs is about 85% of able bodied muslim men

Being a Razakar is being an active jihadist much different from simply voting for jinnah

And even today, Owaisi wins 90% of the muslim vote in Hyderabad

--

Moving onto Kerala
the IUML is the rump descendant of Jinnahs Muslim League
and kerala muslims in malabar vote dedicatedly for IUML for many decades

--

If IMs are so moderate why then do they not vote for congress in Hyderabad or Kerala

[Rye]

Turkey seems to have the same problem with western secularism as India does.


http://www.indianexpress.com/story/267210.html

Scarf and Secularism

Anywhere else it could be an ordinary administrative technicality. In any case, elsewhere women would perhaps not need legislative cover to tie a scarf loosely over their heads. But for Turkey the scarf — or the absence of it from public places — lies at the heart of modern nationhood. So, by every account, a current move to allow it on university campuses is already controversial. It is also indicative of the ways in which Turkish polity is changing. Two political parties, including the ruling AK Party, have placed in the legislature a plan to allow headscarves in universities. Headscarves in universities were disallowed by the military in 1997. Reports suggest that the move has already drawn criticism from the top military general and university authorities. But the critical reaction would be from the military.


The tussle has been ongoing. Turkey adheres to a strict and unwavering definition of secularism, whereby religious symbols are banned from public spaces. The tussle is between post-Ottoman modernity and freedom of choice. Freedom of choice, for instance, to adopt traditional headgear but more than that, the freedom to use a democratic mandate to legislate changes in the stern code of conduct laid down by the Ataturkian founding fathers. The military — with the backing of the establishment — has seen itself as guardian of those founding guidelines, and on many occasions stepped in to protect Turkish secularism. Of late, however, a political class unrooted in the old socio-economic establishment has tried to assert itself. The AK Party, rooted in an Islamist past, has been challenging the military’s right to unilateral assertion. Last year, there was speculation whether the military would prevent AK’s successful nominee as president, Abdullah Gul, from taking office. Gul’s wife, shuddered the secularists, wore a headscarf. Others, however, worried about the implications of a military intervention and consequent subversion of a democratic vote. In the event, the AK Party called an early election to claim its democratic mandate and Gul became president.

The current move comes with many qualifications — the scarf may be tied loosely, it should not come with a covering for the neck. In this nitpicking, be sure, lies Turkey’s struggle to find a modern self at ease with its cultural diversity.

[ShauryaT]

4. This is not a scare tactic. Many posters have claimed a linear relationship between muslim % and effectiveness of votebank,
whereas in actuality, between 15% and 40% anti-muslim candidates tend to win

One place to test this is the entire border districts around Bangladesh from South Paraganas, into Assam, Meghalaya and Tripura. Does this theory hold there as most of the districts there will exceed 15% muslim population?

[Prem]

Is the act of not killing or not threatening to kill these insulting forces a sign of weakness or is it a sign of civilized enlightenment?

I believe it is a sign of civilized enlightenment. Violence is not the solution, it is part of the problem. It is not a sign of weakness but the deeper understanding and need for a lasting solution. Though I have read many times on BRF and other places that thorn should be taken by thorn. I gather from my reading on BRF that our concerns are about the radical islam which refuses to fit into the concept of India and its tradition of respecting differences in religion and way of life.

If these people can be identified , then removing their earthly bounds is right thing to do . Consider the last 60 years as time period spent on efforts to enlighten them or bring deeper understanding. Keeping the company of misery is not advised in any Dharmic or Scientrific circle.

[SBajwa]

Bottomline is that "Targetted Violence towards jihadi militants is the only solution to save Dharma." Nothing else has worked in past and nothing else will work in future.

1. preaching Philosophy of Mahavira, Buddha and Guru Nanak Dev to islamists will not work (and has not worked since last 1200 years).

2. practicing philosophy of Maurya, Prithvi, shivaji, pratap and singh with total aggression will work (and has worked in past and thus whatever the india we have now).

The current India is the result of the people working and sacrificing hard in 2. above. Thus.. in order to build upon their sacrifices.. India must look outside its WELL and start at the earliest.

Economy and Defense go side by side.

Everytime in past whenever India became rich., people from outside (alexandar, arabians, persians, turks, mongols, afghanis, british, french, etc) came in to loot., because we concentrate too much on economy and not enough on defense.

Thus now... the biggest threat are islamists and we need to hunt them down.

Any sign of a soft state is looked as "SDRE" we must change this perception.

BTW.. those who don't know what SDRE ="Short Dark Rice Eating"

[JwalaMukhi]

Reflecting some more on Kaleem Kwaja's post where denial and obfuscation of truth were seen, it is imperative that nothing stands in the way of (minor details such as facts or truths be damned) capture of political space for islam. Cognitive dissonance is actively encouraged. Islam is immune to truth and political aim trumps all other aims and is only slowed down by survival necessities. With such a framework is it foolish on part of kafirs to beleive there can be any reformation in islam? Heck why should islam be even reformed?

If a maximalist solution is to be pursued, it would imply islam is incorrigible and hence islam (not muslims, who are the first victims of islam) itself should be removed. Argument about its practicality can come later. Turning from maximalist to optimal solution would require making islam unattractive. This would mean pro-active denial of political space for islamic ideas. Specifically, encouragement and patronage for kafir(dharmic) ideas while simultaneous discouragement of islamic fartwas. Current sub-optimal solution is acceptance of dhimmi status.

So, this brings us back to Kaleem Kwaja's post, which actively goads muslims towards untenable sub-optimal solution. On the other hand, such posts is forcing kafirs' hands to choose maximalist solution.

Such articles provides hopes for muslims that current sub-optimal solution is temporary abberation, that when tide turns (such as thro' fundings and inspirations from fountain heads), dar-ul-islam will take its place under the sun, specifically in India. Kafirs hands are forced to demonstrate that India shall remain dar-ul-harb and will continue to be dar-ul-harb. The cure for cognitive dissonance is being sought through brute force techniques (which sikhs and to some extent hindus have amply administered). The maculayzed islamists would serve well, where they work towards optimal solution of encouraging the muslims to live as responsible minorities in dar-ul-harb. If living responsibly in dar-ul-harb is not acceptable, then cure for cognitive dissonance will be administred by the majority. Well the motto may become: from shielding kafirs from islam to rescuing Indian muslims from islam.

[ShauryaT]

BTW.. those who don't know what SDRE ="Short Dark Rice Eating"

I realize the SDRE tag is a little tongue in cheek, however repeated a 1000 times, it starts getting a ring of seriousness to it. I have never felt comfortable with this description....Most of my family and many North Indians are either or in combination not short, not dark and not rice eating.

What is this? some type of South Indian revenge

OK, seriously, Indians never subscribed to these racist theories...the macuaylized minds should realize, we are a largely homogeneous genetic pool in the Indian land mass.

[Dilbu]

SDRE has a ring of sarcasm to it. I just love to use it more than the TFTA thingy. Eg: SDRE yindoo shivering in his dhothis. SDRE AAD mijjile etc.

[satya]

I recall an incident with a Amritdhari Jatt Sikh , who once did actually supported the idea of Khalistan . He recalled me an example how "boys" were cleared out of the movement and it was crushed. When Shri. KPS Gill became DGP , he gave recruitment powers to SSPs in distt. to recruit local boys into Punjab Police with a catch. All new recruits were given two conditions to comply before their services were made regular/permanent. Conditions were :

1. Depending on rank in Police , a certain number of militants be identified and marked out of population from recruit's home distt.

2 Use of Kirpan for certain actions .



Nothing else brokedown the movement better than this for during those times ,with vast support in rural areas , job in Police also means certain immunity to settle old family feuds and it certainly prevailed and cleared out the militancy . None of the CI Ops officers ever complain of not being able to handle or clear out the terrorists in J&K but for want for free hand to tackle the problem .It may not be an ideal solution for all the states but it seem to be working in Gujrat where an example was made in 2002 and for past 5 yrs , they seem to be free of any Jihadi activities ,

My point is if we say a certain % of muslims are radicalised then make an example of them .Others will follow if not least they can give out enough time to sort out their orientation.

There indeed is a window of opportunity till this Global War on terrorism continues .

[sanjaykumar]

Yeah but what if one is SDRE, is it not offensive?

[satya]

Yeah but what if one is SDRE, is it not offensive?

For such actions , a few are enough but at right places.

On matter of SDRE , some of the best policy inpute & direction and operational level management was in hands of SDRE types in Punjab. In such a situation , you need both muscle and brain for optimal results so a few will do the job provided they r placed at right place sort of Chess game where certain pieces need to be at certain prepositions for deadly blow .

[Ardeshir]

Yeah but what if one is SDRE, is it not offensive?

I am an SDRE, and it is not offensive to me, because I am like this onlee.

We have all seen in our lifetime how India's classification changed from India==Pakistan==3rd World Hellhole to India==Economic Giant==Superpower in Waitingl. One thing that always struck me, was that outsiders (as well as our own people) were very prone to undermining, and under-estimating us.
A typical SDRE is under-estimated (and undermined), and this is what I draw (mental) strength from. Undermine, underestimate and dismiss me, while I calmly slip under the radar, and surprise you.

[vsudhir]

Shiv sar,

But your suggestions, taken with other suggestions indicate a strange phenomenon on this thread yet again.

The problems being discussed are about Islamic extremism. And we have had a load of the same old facts about Islam and Muslims (demography, ideology, tactics, behavior) that we have repeated on here for at least 5 years as far as I can recall.

But all solutions revolve around what Hindus should do and how to make the constitution fair to Hindus as well as to others.

There is no adharmic call for eliminating Muslims despite all the hard feelings expressed. This then seems to be a sort of "temperature indicator" of this forum - of what the deepest feelings are among the educated Hindus who come on here. No call for violence. But yet, people who express support for a Hindu viewpoint are accused of extremism themselves.

There is a method to this madness and there is a clear connection between what I (and other posters) here express and the issue of izlamic extremism.

What we ask for is 'fairness', 'liberty' and 'equality' in an absolute sense for all - kafir and believer alike. By that singular act, we are striking out at the momeen. Islam is structurally incapable of equality with other belief systems and of live and let live.

If we as indus with the oft-repeated 80% numerical preponderence cannot ensure a dharmic fairness, equality and liberty even for ourselves in our sacred motherland, we are doomed.

But if we can, and here's the method, the next step is to demand and implement the controversial (but likely consistent with dharma) doctrine of 'reciprocity' with muslim groups, socities and governments.

When the infidel world comes round to the reciprocal view (and it is righteous and dharmic), islam is toast. No Church in KSA==no KSA funded mosques in my backyard types etc. And the next 9/11x10 in a western city will precipitate the next islam vs infidels war mighty quick, or so I hope. So that we can beat down this threat in our lifetimes, break it - in the bargain lose millions, maybe tens of millions - but secure the future for our children and grandchildren to come from the threat of totalatarian islam.

The choice the ancestors of today's pushtuns made was in hindsight not worth it. It shouldn't be for us, either.

But am getting ahead of myself. First step is damage assessment. Then comes damage control.

JMTs etc.