Tackling Islamic Extremism in India - 6

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

Tackling Islamic Extremism in India - 6

Postby shiv » 07 Feb 2008 17:38


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

Postby shiv » 07 Feb 2008 18:55

I will just use this opportunity to put down one view of history that occurs to me. It is history that is from a viewpoint older than that which is commonly acknowledged. The fact that History ostensibly begins 2008 years ago tends to rubbish other viewpoints. We need to get beyond that.

Inter-communal relations in India are held ransom to views of history that seem like nonsense to Hindus and I will dwell on that for a start.

I am cross posting what i wrote on another forum in two separate posts with some modification.


Basically Hinduism is not about God. The coming of people to India who classified themselves as "I am X religion" was the only factor that differentiated a "Hindu local" from a follower of X religion. As long as X religion was not flaunted, a follower of X religion living in India and following local customs was part of the background like anyone else.

Apart from Christians there are hajaar Muslims who are indistinguishable from any other Indians. I use the word "any other Indians" deliberately. For want of a better name the people of ancient India were called Indians. "India" is a derivation from the name of the river Indus. The Indus river is traditionally called "Sindhu" in India and the name Hindu is derived from that. Hindus were just that, Indians. Not a particular religion.

However the statement "Not a particular religion" has been misused to say "many religions". The desperate need to divide people up into religions and religious dominations based on a single worshipped deity was an invention of Christianity (or was it Judaism?) that was later taken up enthusiastically by Islam. After the coming of these two religions, no human could bypass the requirement of having a "religion" tag attached to him. "Hindu" was never a religion before that. People from outside came to India and told Indians "You are Hindus. We are < insert name of religion here >. We have the only God and good practices. You have false Gods and practise rubbish"

For these reasons, the people who were Indians were given the tag "Hindus". Hindus as everyone knows and repeats ad nauseam are a diverse bunch, in appearance, language and habits. But many leaders revered by Hindus over centuries have always pointed out some kind of commonality that links Hindus. That commonality is neither appearance, nor God, nor language. The only word that can pin it down (because of its lack of precise definition) is dharma. One does not have to follow "Hindu Gods" to be dharmic. A lot of Indians are dharmic even if their God is Allah or Jehovah. What binds Indians is dharma, not God. Dharma is merely a set of social rules important to Indians, some as simple as "respect your elders and parents", includes things like reverence for nature, and an acceptance that no single form of God needs to dominate human belief, all and any are fine. Every Indian tends to follow a very very similar set of dharmic rules that dictate the way he behaves.

It is another matter that some purists who see themselves as "a different religion" may not like the tag dharma being attached to anyone who is a worshipper of the God he wants to believe in, but that is a misinterpretation of dharma in any case.

Modern India is united because of Hindus and not despite them. It will remain united because of them.

When India was struggling it was "Hindu rate of growth". "Hindu discrimination and bigotry would break India apart with forward castes suppressing backward castes." When it was war with Pakistan, it was "war of freedom for suppressed Muslims from Hindu rule."

Now that everyone is saying positive things about India - it would be tempting and probably wholly justifiable to claim that the successes are a Hindu success story.

People never tire of pointing out how India was never a united country in the past until the British created a single monolithic India.

So who is claiming that India is united now?

India broke into two political fragments the day the Brits left and is now three fragments. And one of those fragments, Pakistan, has a civil war going on right now. The 65% fragment of Old United India (Modern India) that holds all the Hindus plus all sorts of other religions is the only one that seems to be doing alright. Even the caste system has been suppressed and is gradually disappearing - starting from the highest castes. And the empowerment that the SC/STs have got from reservation now has the formerly casteless egalitarian religious minorities lining up and clamoring for reservation for "dalit Muslims" and "dalit Christians" Why discard the "Hindu" title for India just when things are looking up?

The other fragments of India are 95% Muslim. Modern India is 80% Hindu. Hindus did not chuck those people out. They opted out to form Pakistan and later Bangladesh. I believe we have a Hindu state now. In fact the basis of a Hindu state is not religion at all. Hinduism merely asks for dharma and not for any particular God, and we have been fortunate to be left in India with a reasonable quantum of dharmic people - including dharmic Muslims and Christians, even if some of them are rejecting dictates of their own faiths in favor of dharma. So the success of a Hindu state if any, is not based on a particular religion but on the success of dharma.

Those who discarded the dharma of India are still trying to figure out how to govern themselves and appear to be doing a worse job than an average society of Orangutans. There is a lesson in this for everyone IMO.

archan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6821
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 21:30
Contact:

Postby archan » 07 Feb 2008 19:58

^^ Those are words of gold. My regards to whoever wrote them. I love how beautifully he defined 'Hindu' - something I have been feeling but never could express correctly. So not being religious does not automatically make someone not-Hindu....and not calling oneself Hindu (as in the so-called religion) does not make one an alien among their own Dharmic people. Very well put.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5219
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 07 Feb 2008 20:00

shiv wrote:I believe we have a Hindu state now. In fact the basis of a Hindu state is not religion at all. Hinduism merely asks for dharma and not for any particular God, and we have been fortunate to be left in India with a reasonable quantum of dharmic people - including dharmic Muslims and Christians, even if some of them are rejecting dictates of their own faiths in favor of dharma. So the success of a Hindu state if any, is not based on a particular religion but on the success of dharma.

Those who discarded the dharma of India are still trying to figure out how to govern themselves and appear to be doing a worse job than an average society of Orangutans. There is a lesson in this for everyone IMO.
Shiv: I appreciate your views. But, the Indian constitution reduces Hindus to another religious community separate and distict from Muslims, christians, parsis and the Jews.

The consititution does not recognize the minorities as Hindus. When and only when the constitution abolishes this religious community business and has common laws with dharma as its supreme guide, only then will the Indian state be rightly called a Hindu state.

As of now, all practices attached to the Hindu way of life, - even if consistent with Dharma is banned in the public space, in the name of Secularism. Vande Mataram is a prime example of this veto of Secularism over this Dharmic state, where even a simple apprciation of love for the land, represented as the mother, in the form of Durga or Bharat mata is not allowed.

In a dharmic/hindu state, these practices should rightfully be allowed. So, how is India a Hindu state?

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

Postby shiv » 07 Feb 2008 20:40

With respect ShauryaT - I believe that you have a tendency to jump the gun. You (recognize, and) state a problem before anyone else has understood it.

The reason the constitution of India does not recognize what I have written in the passage above is because the constitution was written, as you have yourself stated as a modification and extension of an existing British constitution.

The British constitution itself sees history from the flawed viewpoint that desperately needs to recognise separate religions and sees the need to categorize people into "religions" before speaking of what they need as rights.

So the fundamental question is "How do you view history?". From which vantage point do you view history?

Do you see history as:

1) The Greeks came and found Hindus. Muslims came and conquered Hindus. Brits came and conquered India with Hindus and Muslims. The Indian constitution therefore needs to be written for Hindus, Muslims etc.

Or do you see history as:

2) Long ago there were people living in India. They were unique in many ways and had a great civilization. Their civilization had no need to be dependent on any one God and they did not define themselves as followers of one God. This civilization had been around for perhaps a thousand years when there arose a set of people, not far away from India who began to insist that people must be identified by a God that they followed.

Two "religions" (Christianity and islam) were born of this idea and the people of these two religions went around trying to detect if all other people had the same God they had or not. When people of these religions came to India, these people were unable to understand the people of India who did not need one religion to thrive as a civilization.

In their abject ignorance the vistors (or inavders) chose to create for their own limited understanding of what they saw in India, "a religion" that they called "Hinduism" which they believed followed many false gods. Since the people of these two newer religions eventually ended up ruling the people whom they called Hindus, these ignorant religions did not have the need to understand any historical truths and the fact that a single God is completely unnecessary for a great civilization and advanced knowledge.

Justice for the people who hold these advanced beliefs can only come from recognizing the actual sequence of events in the history of India.

If you see history as the latter (choice 2) you have to make people understand it before you can point out why and how the constitution of India errs. Calling the constitution defective BEFORE widespread knowledge of history as the ancient Indian civilization sees it may make you technically right, but you will be beaten down by ignorance. Hence I accuse you of jumping the gun and scoring a self goal.

Raju

Postby Raju » 07 Feb 2008 20:45

to establish a dharmic state isn't easy. Extrapolating from posts on previous edition of the thread, esp after introduction of 'lone PYT' everyone was immidiately and rather 'unconsciously' assuming higher moral ground and were busy almost moralizing to those in the 'ditch' (adharmic folks) that they were expected to rise to the level of those on higher ground. But is it as simple as that ?

To build a dharmic state, those who are dharmic will indeed have to step down into the dirt with those to whom the advise/scorn is being thrown at and then bring the rest of those in the ditch upto higher ground the hard way. Just by telling those in the ditch that those on higher ground are having a great time (and they need to come up) while the loss is entirely on those who are in the ditch might not work esp since there are others in the ditch who might pull down those who attempt to climb up.

We must show through our own actions and patience and repeated 'dharmic' actions at the right moments to create goodwill and help those in the ditch to rise to the level of those on higher ground. This is tough work and take co-ordinated action and is possibly the only humane solution to the crisis at hand.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5219
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 07 Feb 2008 20:55

shiv wrote: Hence I accuse you of jumping the gun and scoring a self goal.
Your pulse on these threads are far greater than mine and there is method to your madness :) I see what you are saying and hence will refrain from commenting.

However, with due respect, If the word "nation" would have been used instead of "state", I would not have commented.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50754
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 07 Feb 2008 21:05

ShauryaT, Another way of looking is to ensure that the audience is as well informed as you are. My anaology is you are on a train and close to the engine while the others are still on a bullock cart track let alone the train station.

The old saying is you can take a horse to water but cant make it drink it. WRONG. If you take the horse along far enough so that its thirsty then it will drink it. So the its a path integral. We are on the path to make the rest thirst for knowledge.

alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Postby alokgupt » 08 Feb 2008 00:11

Raju wrote:to establish a dharmic state isn't easy. Extrapolating from posts on previous edition of the thread, esp after introduction of 'lone PYT' everyone was immidiately and rather 'unconsciously' assuming higher moral ground and were busy almost moralizing to those in the 'ditch' (adharmic folks) that they were expected to rise to the level of those on higher ground. But is it as simple as that ?


My take is that we need many things to get there:

1) Improved law and order. I don't want to see innocents be held hostage. I don't want to see terrorists go scott free. I don't care if it encounters like Sohabbudin or encounter specialist in bombay. We can hardly protect the rights of innocent to worry about (at this stage) about rights of terrorists or gangsters. Let them be shot.

2) Recognize that there is a problem with current Islamic understanding. And radical islamic idealogy is the root cause of terrorism.

3) Fix constitution and implement uniform civil code and remove article 365. Govt has to be religiously blind. No surveys, reservation, laws based on religion.

4) Improve the level of discourse in Indian society so that we don't fight in medivial ways - no killing, raping, threatening, burning, riots, no nothing. It is a battle of ideas...battle to define the new better India. We will win it by building movement and by votes.

5) No one whether Hindu or Muslim or Christian should ever have any doubt about personally in India he is safe and has opportunity to make his life better.

It is a battle for culture. We cannot win it by defending riots. We cannot win it either by not hanging Afzal Guru.

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15946
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Postby SwamyG » 08 Feb 2008 00:28

archan wrote:^^ Those are words of gold. My regards to whoever wrote them. I love how beautifully he defined 'Hindu' - something I have been feeling but never could express correctly. So not being religious does not automatically make someone not-Hindu....and not calling oneself Hindu (as in the so-called religion) does not make one an alien among their own Dharmic people. Very well put.

V.D.Savarkar says something along similar lines in his "Essentials of Hindutva". His style of writing is little verbose, but probably that's how people wrote in those times. It is available on the internet, if you can't find it email me at swamyg at comcast dot net. I can email you a text copy I downloaded sometime back.

And if you have already read it just ignore me.....

Mahendra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4402
Joined: 11 Aug 2007 17:20
Location: Chronicling Bakistan's Tryst with Dysentery

Postby Mahendra » 08 Feb 2008 00:29


SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15946
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Postby SwamyG » 08 Feb 2008 00:38

ramana wrote:The old saying is you can take a horse to water but cant make it drink it. WRONG. If you take the horse along far enough so that its thirsty then it will drink it. So the its a path integral. We are on the path to make the rest thirst for knowledge.

Oh brilliant. Sheer brilliance. Brilliant.

Regarding ensuring audience being well informed. I did not understand the implication. If the audience is well informed, then won't we have less problems?

farazhussain
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 09:00

Postby farazhussain » 08 Feb 2008 05:57

Can you please tell me who does not think so? All the educated muslims I know think that. Anyway how do you define educated; modern education? I can pull out hundreds from Jamia Milia Islami in DELHI not to mention the whole horde in Aligarh MU which think just like what I mentioned.


Well the people I know don't think so. And I also know some from JMI who don't think so, but I don't know hundreds which somehow you seem to.

But I know somewhat more people in AMU, and they too are critical of KSA.

Why are you not aware of the truth? Or are you deliberately lying? Are you practicing Taqqiya? after all you are a good muslim (as per your own assesment) and holding Koran as final relevation. Anyway scratch that question since if you are you are not going to say yes right?


I just wrote what I thought was the case based on my interactions with many people.

And I never said I was a good Muslim etc.

Further can you tell me how KSA is not pefect Islam place? Just because you say so? In that case you would be aware that you are probably in a minority of one, because every one else does.


Its not in my opinion. Many others share my opinion. And I am pretty sure that among educated Muslims I am not in the minority on this isssue.


Can you please tell me how; KSA moves away from Islam? What they are doing is not Islamic enough?

There are many. For example the laws on driving, etc.

I don't want to further this discussion on Saudi Arabia any more.

farazhussain
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 09:00

Postby farazhussain » 08 Feb 2008 06:01

Echo your sentiments totally; but Mr Hussain has already let it slip; its because Muslims are 30%....


Please let me know where I said that.

You change tracks so much that it is difficult to talk to you. The question is why can Muslims feel special when the people are reciving end are hindus.


No special. I don't think Hindus are at the "receiving end" from Muslims in India today.

farazhussain
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 09:00

Postby farazhussain » 08 Feb 2008 06:15

I also want to know your opinion about the Uniform Civil Code. IMO, unless *all* Indians believe in the same law of the land, there will be irritants in the Hindu-Muslim relations. Please take your time to reply.


Well my personal opinion is that this won't necessarily be a problem, except that it has specifically been made into one by the BJP in 80s, 90s.

However, if Hindus really want UCC, why not just go ahead and implement it? Muslims can't stop it. They may protest, but will ultimately have to agree.

I don't like it being used as an issue year after year. Just go ahead and do it.

but for a moment step into the shoes of Hindus who may have many historical grievances. Of course, if you chose to read the history written by red-green people, every thing will look great but please take some time out to read Sita Ram Goel too: http://www.bharatvani.org/books/htemples2/ You may dismiss this as a saffron propaganda, but it is my sincere request to please read it once and cross check the facts mentioned.


I have come across this before. I won't read it now and I can't verify anyway.

I'm aware of the many Hindu grievances. Please let me know by listing out what can be expected by Indian Muslims today.

So I am curious to know formally what are all the grievances, and what all Indian Muslims must do now.

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

Postby asprinzl » 08 Feb 2008 07:35

I want to write about two things here.

First, is a request/suggestion.

I think, instead of blazing Mr. Faraz with salvo after salvo of questions, we should ask him to write an essay. I am sure his essay will not be representative of general Indian Muslim view point. It would be a personal one. Looking at his language, he comes across as an intellectual person of letters. I am sure if such an essay comes to fruitation, it would one not be devoid of intellect. So, a cease fire shall we say? Mr. Faraz, what say thee sir?
(Oh, there is no Zionist conspiracy in this request.)

Second, I went to the link provided in the last thread regarding Farid Zakariah's book.
One thing struck me. I will here construct a modern day analogy. American military invaded Iraq. They searched for WMD. Now they claim to be there to promote democracy. Suppose, America stays there four a few more decades or even a couple more centuries. Americans introduce their lifestyle, culture and habits into Iraqi soceity. Americans also introduce Christianity to Muslim Iraqis. Over time, Americans adopt Iraqi Arabic and also began writing beautiful Arabic poetry. They take Arab women for wives. Singing high praises to Arab legends and Arabic folk tales. Instead of calling themselves Americans, they begin calling themselves Amriki Al-Iraqi. They become fully imersed in a fusioned American-Iraqi culture. Though they didn't become Muslims, they remained Christians but they become well Arabised. Iraq becomes theirs as they also become Iraq's. Though small in number, they become Iraq's overlords and maintain Shia and Sunnis in their governments and courts as advisers and as other important functionaries. They also have some Shia and Sunni as soldiers and military commanders. Though fussioned into a much localized culture, they still maintained themselves as a distinct Amriki al-Iraqi culture.
Well, three centuries later a neighbouring power invades Iraq. The Amriki-al-Iraqi overlordship comes to an end. Some years later, this new power, sick and tired of ruling over Iraq, decides to leave the land. But before leaving, they decide to give true democracy for the people where one man one vote will really count. Worried that their position and status would be in jeopardy, the Amriki-al-Iraqis demand that there be a clause that gives them a set of seats in the democratic institution to as to protect their interests. When such a demand was not forth coming, the Amriki al-Iraqi demand that some parts of Iraq be disected and be given to the Amriki al-Iraqi to be their homeland.

Well, basically isn't that what happened to India?
Indian Muslim writers and intellectuals and other liberal Indians may write all the honky dorry stuffs as much as they want about all the wonderful Turkic and Mughal thingys. About all the sufi, hashish, Urdu poetry, about how the Turks consider themselves as Indians etc. Heck, these are the same folks who are now opposing tooth and nail America's involments in Iraq and Afghanistan. What if the Americans eventually become the Mughals of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Avram

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

Postby shiv » 08 Feb 2008 08:07

That was an excellent post Avram. A real keeper.

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15946
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Postby SwamyG » 08 Feb 2008 09:14

Shiv: Some time back you had a point of view that India had become Islamic, now you are saying it is a Hindu state. Can you elaborate?

R_Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 12:07

Postby R_Kumar » 08 Feb 2008 11:04

I really don't understand why people are so much interested in this debate with Hussain.
Every one knows that Muslims across the globe are same. They might pretend to be liberal and different when they are in minority(<20%), but put these so called liberals in Saudi or in Pakistan you will see their actual colors.

Now question is why we are expecting Indian Muslims to be different. Their blood boils thinking about American occupation in Iraq, but they are so proud of barbarians (Mughals) occupation of Delhi.

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1228
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Postby Sumeet » 08 Feb 2008 11:54

asprinzl wrote:Second, I went to the link provided in the last thread regarding Farid Zakariah's book.
One thing struck me. I will here construct a modern day analogy. American military invaded Iraq. They searched for WMD. Now they claim to be there to promote democracy. Suppose, America stays there four a few more decades or even a couple more centuries. Americans introduce their lifestyle, culture and habits into Iraqi soceity. Americans also introduce Christianity to Muslim Iraqis. Over time, Americans adopt Iraqi Arabic and also began writing beautiful Arabic poetry.



......................................



When such a demand was not forth coming, the Amriki al-Iraqi demand that some parts of Iraq be disected and be given to the Amriki al-Iraqi to be their homeland.


Avram nice post. just one thing:

Amriki al Iraqi in your analogy will be Americans mostly. In case of India native people adopted Islamic customs and religion. Its been scientifically proven that they are same people as us. The only thing common between them all those barbaric invaders are customs, religion. That surely doesn't makes them either Arab or turk.

In your analogy unless native Iraqi muslims adopt american customs and christian religion it is not entirely accurate picture of India's case.

Other than that its a great post.

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

Postby Sanku » 08 Feb 2008 12:00

Faraz; some folks here want a special treatment of you; not blind you with truth immediately so to say. I believe you have yourself said you have no wish to be special and I too think that constructive agenda is not done by tip toeing around a issue.

So while Asprinzel wish that you first write your POV before we discuss it is good; I really dont think you will ever do that (IMVHO) of course. So being the restless sort I am; I will list the POVs that you have made in the posts above so we can stop playing bait and switch.

Let me know if you don't agree with the list I made.

1) Most IMs are poor and are going around with their lives; there is no problem because of them. The silent majority as you said. A few cause the problems
2) You think KSA and Arabs are Jaahil but you see nothing that has to do with Islam.
3) We are only talking of the negative things; in general things are going well and were going well till Gujarat and barring that minor hiccup most things are okay.
4) Koran is sacrosanct in its entirety; if you don't believe that you are not a muslim.

If you agree that the above is a fair summary of your points of view; I and others have repeatedly raised questions on the same which you have side stepped. Most of your agruments are
"No its not so"
"I dont think so"
"Not to my knowledge"

Just to let you know thats not the kind of answer that gets any one anywhere. You need to back it up with more than those. Point us to links on the web; discussion of history; geo-pol trends etc string them together in a believable argument rather than making assertions.

What value is any individuals assertion anyway after all; any one can make many without any being true correct?

So you have to tell us

1) Since KSA claims to be numero uno Islamic place and every one agrees; (already many indications to the same have been posted) why should we say KSA != Islam. Many think that (both Muslims and non Muslims) if any one (Muslim or not) says that understanding is flawed why should we believe them? What real world proof can one bring to the table.

2) You mention silent majority -- however the majority is not really silent -- its actually very vocal on lot of issues. Talisma should be killed; Hang Rushdie; the road should not be built on Muslim land; special laws for Muslims etc etc. Tons of data can be posted.
However the majority is silent when criticizing negative things in Islamic societies is seen? Dead silence; not even a whimper. Why? You say its not so -- lets say I say bull crap -- how do you convince me.

3) Look at R_kumar's post above; he makes a observation to the general muslim behavior. You obviously do not agree; there are many who make the same observation. Where is the disconnect? Why are these folks not getting to hear the liberal muslim?

4) You say that education and integration is the solution; however we have seen time and again that Muslims dont want to integrate; they want special treatment. You have yourself said that Hindu's are not expected to feel alinated with Muslims despite all the havoc that Muslim violence has caused in India. (recent ones; I am not even dredging up History) but All muslims have this great takleef because of Gujrat; a riot in which many Hindus died as well and which as started by a Muslim mob.
Why the blatant double standards which you are justifying as acceptable?

And I can go on and on but these four will do as a start.

Of course you can stop being defensive and accept what folks have listed is true and instead of denial; accept and fix.

How will Muslims fix any thing if they are in denial?

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1228
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Postby Sumeet » 08 Feb 2008 12:39

asprinzl wrote:Second, I went to the link provided in the last thread regarding Farid Zakariah's book.
One thing struck me. I will here construct a modern day analogy. American military invaded Iraq. They searched for WMD. Now they claim to be there to promote democracy. Suppose, America stays there four a few more decades or even a couple more centuries. Americans introduce their lifestyle, culture and habits into Iraqi soceity. Americans also introduce Christianity to Muslim Iraqis. Over time, Americans adopt Iraqi Arabic and also began writing beautiful Arabic poetry.



......................................



When such a demand was not forth coming, the Amriki al-Iraqi demand that some parts of Iraq be disected and be given to the Amriki al-Iraqi to be their homeland.


Avram nice post. just one thing:

Amriki al Iraqi in your analogy will be Americans mostly/only. In case of India native people adopted Islamic customs and religion. Its been scientifically proven that they [Indian muslims] are same people as us. The only thing common between them all those barbaric invaders are customs, religion. That surely doesn't makes them either Arab or turk. Physically they are as Indian as any other indian.

In your analogy unless native Iraqi muslims adopt american customs and christian religion it is not entirely accurate picture of India's case.

Other than that its a great post.

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

Postby shiv » 08 Feb 2008 18:45

SwamyG wrote:Shiv: Some time back you had a point of view that India had become Islamic, now you are saying it is a Hindu state. Can you elaborate?

India is a Hindu state that has desperately tried to behave like an islamic state and tried slot itself in with the community of Islamic states.

India has showed weakly Islamic behavior, but has all characteristics required of a Hindu state including dhimmitude and bending over backwards for everyone's viewpoint in accordance with the dharmic requirement of humility and respect for the others viewpoint.

Democracy? India wants to fit in with the best there.

Socialism? India wants to fit in with that crowd.

Islam? India wants to stand shoulder to shoulder with the worst of them

Hindu? Naah we don't want any of that. But India's Hindu identity shows through nevertheless.

One way of explaining India's behavior is to look at it as a fundamentally Hindu state which is struggling to avoid a Hindu identity for the purpose of building a nation.

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

Postby JwalaMukhi » 08 Feb 2008 20:29

Image
[img=http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/9106/image1iy3.th.jpg]

Image
[img=http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/33/image2qk4.th.jpg]

Hindu entities basically assume human is a limitation. The emphasis is on transcending the bonds of trappings of human existence. Remembering Bhaja Govindam ( Eha Samsara bahu duhkare…), the acts of hindu entity is to break the shackles of limitations imposed by virtue of taking a form of life. The hindu entity sees itself as a projection of Complex mechanisms. Hence, insistence on freedom and removal of limitations is pursued. Self-identity is purposely unclear and hence the emphasis is on Self-realization. Self-identity is defined based on the situation, so various dharmas, Pitru dharma, Mathru dharma, Acharaya dharma, atthithi dharma, etc., are applicable. Hindu entity looks to liberate and not confine. Hence, depending on situation the hindu entity has a solid boundary or no-boundary or loose boundary (see figure). This makes the hindu entity to look to fit and find a place in the environment, and there is no need to remake the environment.

(The model described above could be extended to see the interactions of different entities under varying conditions, along with adding the other major religion. How different entities could be exploited (usage of density) external force field to manipulate the ground conditions.).

Islam creates an entity with certain specific properties. Let us examine closely the properties and how they align and interact with the rest of the world. The strength of Islam is it provides a concrete definition about the Islamic entity.i.e., self-identity is crystal clear and it clearly demarcates what is Islamic and by virtue defines what is not Islamic in universe. This implies, a person who comes under the ambit of Islam, no matter what, is primarily a muslim, under any or all circumstance. This means whether one is doctor or a father or a son or whatever else, the muslim identity trumps other identitites (others are mere vocations or conditions) always. Looking from one angle this is a limitation imposed by islam. The individual is bounded and defined and thereby his interactions with external is modulated. From another angle, this provides a solid base for the individual, and he/she has no doubt about self-identity.

Basic Properties of Islamic entity:

1) Water-tight definition. No doubt about self identity. Clear demarcation of what is Islamic and by virtue defines what is unislamic. Boundary conditions absolute.
2) Alignment: Sense of direction towards Koran (Mecca)
3) Degree of freedom of Alignment: None or Very little
4) Promulgates either conversion or elimination of non-islamic entitites and non-islamic environment.

Since Islam is Johnny come late on the world scene, particularly anything representative of non-islamic entity was/is a fair game. (So, Bahmian Buddha statue, countless hindu temples, churches etc., are examples of that). If any of the four properties were diluted even a bit till t = 3 or 4 centuries, it meant islam would have met its end. Islamic entities in turn generated Islamic environments (see figure). Islamic environment is explicitly where it is devoid of any non-islamic entity’s representation.

The above four properties yields interesting interactions with the world. Islamic entity’s perception is it can thrive in an Islamic environment. It will be maladjusted to live in non-islamic environment because it directly impacts property no. 4. Property no. 4 is direct derivation from property no.2 and hence, there will be a sense of loss or incompleteness. This leads to all sorts of adjustments or mal adjustments to compensate for the loss, such as:
1) Since Islamic identity is closely entwined with Islamic entity, Islamic entity will support any or every other Islamic entity unless it is explicitly dangerous or blatantly stupid to do so. The protection of Islamic identity is paramount.
2) Some entities choose to establish property no.4, and in the process fix up appointments with 72 of the fairest raisins in heaven.
3) Any loss or elimination of non-islamic entities does not evoke empathy or any sense of loss, because property 4 is restored.
4) Any affront on Islamic identity would produce lot of agitation in the Islamic entity. Even mere suggestion to examination of ‘Islamic identity’ will be considered an affront. This agitation will spill over to public space for silly reasons, and create chaos.
5) Chaotic situation is where Islamic self-identity plays a critical role. All non-islamic (obvious because what is not Islamic is clear – no self doubt) things will be in cross-wires for rage release of Islamic entity.

Any ideology that is not open for scrutiny, critique or dialogue is going to be untenable in the long run. Especially more so, for an ideology, that depends on a closed book. Hence, Islam is a bankrupt ideology and will wind down.
This brings us to Shaurya’s statement from Sri Aurobindo, that islam is a side show in India. That could be true in the long run, but Islamic ideology will undergo painful catharsis and Indians should not be either purgatory or the roadkill for this vicious ideology. Why should Indian muslims bear the burden, because an ideology from desert lands is going through bankruptcy? Specifically as hindus were never a party to it, it should be clearly unacceptable that even a single loss of hindu life is one too many, due to struggle for adjustment of Islam by any Islamic entity.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4899
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Postby SBajwa » 08 Feb 2008 22:27

Excellent Debates.

IMHO

India based religion emphasize on invidiuality (karma and dharma) and thus we have castes (people doing the same Karm(work) were all grouped together as their collective economic Dharma), In modern times we have castes of "movie heroes (star sons and daughters)","doctors who have their children as doctors", and so forth. Thus democracy works where each person has his/her own personal God and he/she does not need to do anything with their own sect/caste, except when voting or for reservation, finding a match for his son/daughter(economic reasons) collectively with their (caste)group. Thus Panchayat(Desi Grass roots democracy) has always worked (before this British Democracy) in India.

Same thing with indian muslims (bohra ismailis memons which are caste based business groups). But wahabi Islamists now want people to shun their inviduality(whatever the muslims have) and go back to their perceived Godly "Wahabi" ways. Shias, Sufis and other "non wahabi" sects are rechristened as "ungodly". Why has democracy (one vote for one indivual) never worked in muslim majority states is because of too much hero worship of the founder of Islam and thus Islamic societies always throw up a "dictator".,as they support "the person wielding the biggest physical power" and not "person getting the most votes"(which will not work as long as one person has too much power).

But the current problem in Islamic societies is with the Wahabis who started their campaign with Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab at-Tamimi (1703–1792) 200 years ago. It has ballooned into a major international terrorist problem to which many rogue states(Pakistan, saudi arabia) have aligned themselves. These rogue states see as advancing the cause of Ibn Wahab as their "Dharma". There are two separate solutions to this


Short Term Solution
Military Solution by non-muslims to keep these states in check.

Long Term Solution.
"moderate" muslims must debate among themselves and stop these wahabi degenerate (who according to these moderates are un-islamic). In other words. This Silent majority must grow some spine and take up the power.

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

Postby Sanku » 08 Feb 2008 22:49

SBajwa wrote:Long Term Solution.
"moderate" muslims must debate among themselves and stop these wahabi degenerate (who according to these moderates are un-islamic). In other words. This Silent majority must grow some spine and take up the power.


What if there really is not "moderate" muslim population? Or never enough to be critical mass for change?

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20905
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 08 Feb 2008 23:43

Sumeet wrote:
asprinzl wrote:Second, I went to the link provided in the last thread regarding Farid Zakariah's book.
their lifestyle, culture and habits into Iraqi soceity. Americans also introduce Christianity to Muslim Iraqis. Over time, Americans adopt Iraqi Arabic and also began writing beautiful Arabic poetry.
......................................
When such a demand was not forth coming, the Amriki al-Iraqi demand that some parts of Iraq be disected and be given to the Amriki al-Iraqi to be their homeland.


Avram nice post. just one thing:

Amriki al Iraqi in your analogy will be Americans mostly/only. In case of India native people adopted Islamic customs and religion. Its been scientifically proven that they [Indian muslims] are same people as us. The only thing common between them all those barbaric invaders are customs, religion. That surely doesn't makes them either Arab or turk. Physically they are as Indian as any other indian.

In your analogy unless native Iraqi muslims adopt american customs and christian religion it is not entirely accurate picture of India's case.

Other than that its a great post.


The karmic part is Americans are using Khalifa quality excuse . Muslims use the excuse of saving women folks and punish Raja Dahir and US went looking for non existent WMD .
Muslims all over the world dislike American intervetion , doing protest and indulge in terrorism killing civilians . They have no stomach for fight in the battlefiled. Hope this analogy gives them the glimpse of Hindu anguish.
Summet, Indian Muslims being of Indian? Hindu stock make the case worst for them. Why are they adhering to alien ideology while discarding Indic spiritual traditions .The need of looking for God in far away foreign land and culture tentanmounts to slap on Indian spiritual philosophy. It is insult to their forefathers and Indic civilization that they continue relate to invader brabarians.Their doing so is a constant reminder of them being not part of land or ethos of India.
I understand they are free to choose but after making that choice they ought to live with it and not demand extra from Kuffar world .

Abhijit
BRFite
Posts: 529
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Bay Area - US

Postby Abhijit » 09 Feb 2008 00:17

In Islam AFAIK there is no concept of veneration of forefathers or any non-Islamic traditions. In fact the koran exhorts you to be loyal and obedient to nothing other than the Koran and PBUH, even if it means killing your own parents/siblings/family. It is only the indic mind in Hindus that gets astonished when one sees the wanton destruction and repudiation of one's heritage by erstwhile indic Muslims.

the genocide of Hindus and destruction of Hindu icons by islamic invaders of the past 1000+ years is something that has been swept under the rug by the sickular GoI over the last 50 years. I would venture to say that a majority of Hindus would be willing to forgive and forget as long as Indian Islam acknowledges that such killing and destruction happened, it happened under the explicit sanction of Islam as a religious war but denounces the past to assure us that it will never happen again. Not because the Hindus of today will turn the whole of India into Gujarat but because it was morally ethically and philosophically wrong and any ideology that sanctions such destruction is utterly renounced by Indian muslims. We cannot have a veneration of past and present islamic killers and expect the Hindus to accept it.

Until and unless such a renunciation is undertaken by Indian Islam, we are on the path of inevitable collision. The only toss of coin is whether the collision will happen in India before it happens in the West.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20905
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 09 Feb 2008 01:45

Well said Abhihit. One dont have to be genius to understand why persons like Khalidi or Kwaja want reservations in various Governmental institutions including Armed forces. IM inability to keep political Islam
( segregation and ghettoization etc) separate from religion will ultimately be detrimental for their status in India.

Theo_Fidel
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7613
Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Location: MO,US,NCJ TN

Postby Theo_Fidel » 09 Feb 2008 02:18

The word 'Hindu' does not appear anywhere in authentic spiritual texts, mostly in sanskrit. The spiritual belief actually uses the 'Sanatana Dharma' terminology.

In this case Shiv may have got it exactly opposed.

It is 'Hindu' that is a geographical identifier, with many origins linked to the Sindh river and many as Persian epithets, for thief, slave, etc.

It is almost certain that Hindu was a name given by invaders to a peoples.

In Sanskrit 'YasyaBharatha Bhomika' is the identifier for the peoples of this land. Hence Bharatha.

Even more curiously, the land around the Indus was called 'Meluha' by the ancients. A much more lyrical name.

The lands were also called the 'Saptha Sindu', indicating that Sindhu may have been the name for river, rather than 'the' river as it is today.

Lost in the mists of time.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20905
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 09 Feb 2008 02:27

AIMMM condemns ban on SIMI
Submitted by Tarique on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 17:53. Indian Muslim
By TwoCircles.net staff reporter

New Delhi: The All India Muslim Majlis-e Mushawarat (AIMMM) President, Dr Zafarul-Islam Khan, has condemned the extension of the ban on Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). In a press statement issued today, Dr Khan termed as unfortunate the UPA government’s decision to ban SIMI for another two years. On 7th February, the central government took a decision to the effect in a cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh.

Expressing its deep anguish, AIMMM questioned the logic of the ban when SIMI members, including its chief at the time of the first ban in 2001, have been acquitted or released on bail due to lack of evidence.

In a clear case of discrimination and double-standard against Muslims, the government has been religiously extending the ban since 2001. The new ban has been imposed at the time when Hindutva outfits, despite their criminal and terrorist activities, remain untouched and free to inflict further physical and psychological wounds on this nation, said the statement. The communal violence in Gujarat, Orissa and now Maharashtra are clear examples of this double-standard approach, AIMMM said.

No can question that terrorism in all forms must be condemned and terrorists must be defeated. What is disturbing is the trend in media and government agencies to blame Muslims for any terrorist attack within minutes of such incidents. The anti-Muslim mindset is taking a heavy toll for Muslims. Muslim youths are harassed in many parts of the country.

AIMMM said that terrorists must be punished for their misdeeds but at the same time Muslim organisations, youths and localities should not be harassed in the name of fighting terrorism

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1228
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Postby Sumeet » 09 Feb 2008 02:48

Abhijit wrote: I would venture to say that a majority of Hindus would be willing to forgive and forget as long as Indian Islam acknowledges that such killing and destruction happened, it happened under the explicit sanction of Islam as a religious war but denounces the past to assure us that it will never happen again. Not because the Hindus of today will turn the whole of India into Gujarat but because it was morally ethically and philosophically wrong and any ideology that sanctions such destruction is utterly renounced by Indian muslims. We cannot have a veneration of past and present islamic killers and expect the Hindus to accept it.

Until and unless such a renunciation is undertaken by Indian Islam, we are on the path of inevitable collision. The only toss of coin is whether the collision will happen in India before it happens in the West.



This may not satisfy you completely but you can see some acknowledgment from jamaat e islami hind about barbaric Islamic rulers.

http://jamaateislamihind.org/index.php? ... blockid=31

But although Islam had a very extensive reach, the Indian Muslims did not, with the exception of a few scholars and religious institutions, have a comprehensive view of Islam free from superstitions and evil practices. Many Muslim kings had been war-mongering and profligate; and the self-seeking rulers gave a worse image of Islam.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20905
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 09 Feb 2008 02:56

Muslims themselves drifted away from the Qur'an and the Prophet's example, maintaining scholastic biases and espousing the evils of polytheistic :( practices. With the British colonisation of the country the western version of secularism,
http://jamaateislamihind.org/index.php? ... blockid=31

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15946
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Postby SwamyG » 09 Feb 2008 03:16

Shiv: I think we have taken the discussion to such a level that it might be timely to distinguish the term Hindu and the religion followed by the majority of people living in India - a.k.a Hinduism as commonly understood by people.
Hinduism is one of the religions followed by the Hindus. Again this is nothing new, Savarkar and others have done it decades ago.

Jwalamukhi: A strong identity can be countered by a stronger identity. For example the Tamil identity is quite strong in some muslims, and it looks like the Bengali identity is stronger too. When a person has strings attached to several such strong identities it takes lot of effort to sway him or her to one corner.

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

Postby shiv » 09 Feb 2008 05:38

SwamyG wrote:Shiv: I think we have taken the discussion to such a level that it might be timely to distinguish the term Hindu and the religion followed by the majority of people living in India - a.k.a Hinduism as commonly understood by people.
Hinduism is one of the religions followed by the Hindus. Again this is nothing new, Savarkar and others have done it decades ago.

Jwalamukhi: A strong identity can be countered by a stronger identity. For example the Tamil identity is quite strong in some Muslims, and it looks like the Bengali identity is stronger too. When a person has strings attached to several such strong identities it takes lot of effort to sway him or her to one corner.


SwamyG that is exactly what I have been trying to do. It is difficult to get that meaning across. "Hindu" is a name applied by outsiders to the people of India who were NOT characterized by any single God (religion). There USP was a unique entity known as dharma. Sanatana Dharma to be precise.

With "Hindus" themselves using the term religion and "sanatana dharma" interchangeably, minds are muddled.

You are right about the regional identity among Muslims. What many people seem to fail to realise that India's much criticised education policies have done one great favor to all Hindus. The regional and caste differences between Hindus are now gradually being consigned to history. The education policy hoped that Muslims too would join that homogenization - but many have doggedly refused to join.
Last edited by shiv on 09 Feb 2008 05:57, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby shiv » 09 Feb 2008 05:55

JwalaMukhi wrote:
Image
[img=http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/33/image2qk4.th.jpg]
...
1) Water-tight definition. No doubt about self identity. Clear demarcation of what is Islamic and by virtue defines what is unislamic. Boundary conditions absolute.
4) Promulgates either conversion or elimination of non-islamic entitites and non-islamic environment.
..



Jwalamukhi - interesting post - more suited to the Islamism thread though.

May I add something that you have omitted - i.e the interaction 1 and 4.

Once an Islamic environment is created, Islam does not stabilize.

The end point of Islam is too well defined and completely rigid and physically difficult to achieve. The personal demands placed on a "pure Muslims" are too great, and there is built in inequality in Islam in which one human can dominate another using the excuse of "Not islamic enough". No biological system can survive such rigid rules. So an Islamic environment is a mass/mess of civil conflict until dominated by a despot. Islam's dream is to get Mohammad or the 4 rightly guided Caliphs back. The system is too rigid to survive in stability, without civil strife in th absence of either forced dilution by non Islamic entities (eg India or the US/Europe) or by forced subjugation -(Islamic dictator)

alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Postby alokgupt » 09 Feb 2008 06:21

Al Qaeda has arrived in India

url

NEW DELHI/PANAJI: Latest intelligence inputs warning of Bali-type terror bombings in Goa have prompted an alert in the popular tourist destination, chief minister Digamber Kamat disclosed in Panaji on Thursday.

The alert follows the confession by a suspected terrorist arrested by Karnataka police, regarding his plans to strike in Karnataka and Goa. The terrorist is said to have told the police that he could not carry out his plans of unleashing terror in the two states as he did not receive a consignment of around 50 kg of RDX from Pakistan.
“We have sounded an alert all over the state and security has been strengthened,â€

G Subramaniam
BRFite
Posts: 405
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58

Taqiyah Alert

Postby G Subramaniam » 09 Feb 2008 07:03

Sumeet wrote:
Abhijit wrote: I would venture to say that a majority of Hindus would be willing to forgive and forget as long as Indian Islam acknowledges that such killing and destruction happened, it happened under the explicit sanction of Islam as a religious war but denounces the past to assure us that it will never happen again. Not because the Hindus of today will turn the whole of India into Gujarat but because it was morally ethically and philosophically wrong and any ideology that sanctions such destruction is utterly renounced by Indian muslims. We cannot have a veneration of past and present islamic killers and expect the Hindus to accept it.

Until and unless such a renunciation is undertaken by Indian Islam, we are on the path of inevitable collision. The only toss of coin is whether the collision will happen in India before it happens in the West.



This may not satisfy you completely but you can see some acknowledgment from jamaat e islami hind about barbaric Islamic rulers.

http://jamaateislamihind.org/index.php? ... blockid=31

But although Islam had a very extensive reach, the Indian Muslims did not, with the exception of a few scholars and religious institutions, have a comprehensive view of Islam free from superstitions and evil practices. Many Muslim kings had been war-mongering and profligate; and the self-seeking rulers gave a worse image of Islam.


The first islamic barbarian who ordered the attack on india was the prophet Mohd
The first islamic attack on India was done by the rightly guided caliph Umar in 636
The next islamic attack on India was done by the rightly guided caliph Ali
a few years later
Both these attacks failed

Will any muslim denounce these acts of Mohd, Umar and Ali

G Subramaniam
BRFite
Posts: 405
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58

Postby G Subramaniam » 09 Feb 2008 07:07

Prem wrote:AIMMM condemns ban on SIMI
Submitted by Tarique on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 17:53. Indian Muslim
By TwoCircles.net staff reporter

New Delhi: The All India Muslim Majlis-e Mushawarat (AIMMM) President, Dr Zafarul-Islam Khan, has condemned the extension of the ban on Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI).
AIMMM said that terrorists must be punished for their misdeeds but at the same time Muslim organisations, youths and localities should not be harassed in the name of fighting terrorism


This is a classic example of a passive jihadist
By hampering law enforcement, they are abetting Jihad
and can be considered as working to the same goal

They can be considered an overground worker and SIMI as the underground worker for jihad

G Subramaniam
BRFite
Posts: 405
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58

The perils of affair with a muslim woman

Postby G Subramaniam » 09 Feb 2008 07:24

Cop's lover runs to police for cover
Author: Mumbai Mirror Bureau
Publication: Mumbai Mirror
Date: January 24, 2008
URL: url
He had turned down marriage proposal from RPF constable girlfriend after their affair turned sour; she and her family are after his life now

A? small-time model has lodged a police complaint against a woman police constable of the? RPF, saying she has been threatening him with dire consequences if he doesn't marry her.

The two had met through Internet chat about a year ago and fallen in love.

According to the Oshiwara police, Pankaj Aggrawal (30), a model staying in Lokhandwala, has lodged two non-cognisable complaints against Shama Sayyed (23), saying she and her family members have been threatening and harassing him to convert to her faith and marry her.

Aggrawal says he got to know Sayyed through a Reliance Web "find-a-friend" chat room in February last year. Soon, they were talking to each other on the phone and even exchanging pictures. Some time later, they met up and Cupid struck. "By April, we had decided we would get married soon," said Aggrawal.

DADDY'S GIRL

Things ran smooth until the girl's father learnt of the relationship in November. He said the two could marry only if Aggrawal converted. Sayyed took her father's side but her lover refused to play ball.

He told Sayyed he was ready to marry her but would not convert. It was then that Sayyed and her family members allegedly started threatening Aggrawal. "I first thought these were initial hiccups we would tide over. But when Sayyed and her family members started threatening me with dire consequences, I realised I was with the wrong girl. I told them that I didn't want to marry her anymore."

However, it got worse for Aggrawal as he started getting threatening calls and SMSes.

Finally, on December 3, Aggrawal lodged a complaint with the police. But, undeterred by all this, Sayyed and her family asked Aggrawal to meet them at their house or face consequences.

When Aggrawal refused, they landed at his house on December 12 and started knocking on his door and abusing him. A scared Aggrawal called up the Oshiwara police, which sent a constable for help.

The next day, Aggrawal lodged another complaint.

When Sayyed learnt of this, she called Aggrawal to her office in Dadar on December 14, where her seniors tried to persuade Aggrawal to withdraw his complaints and marry the girl.

Finding himself cornered, Aggrawal then approached a human rights group for help.?

"Though the group has sent its report to the police, no action has been taken. I am very scared. They keep calling me till late in the night. The girl even reached my native place in Jabalpur."

Sayyed, however, denied the charges. "I don't want to speak about my personal life in the press, but I can say that Pankaj is lying," she said.

Senior inspector Kiran Sonone of the Oshiwara police station said, "The girl is now pressurising the boy to get married to her. We have registered two complaints. It is their personal matter and there is not much for us to do."


Return to “Strategic & Security Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests