Saturday, December 31, 2005

outlook : rants and Raves Part-3

1.why should it automatically be presumed that because an
idea has come from the RSS, it should be at once shunned? What
sort of intellectualism is this? How irrational can one be? As
Shakespeare might have said, of the RSS as he made one of his
characters speak about Jews: "If you prick us do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not
die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?" What
intellectual arrogance is it to insist that only secularists
have the right to lay down the law? And if Indian students,
studying in India, are not to be taught the Vedas and the
Upanishads on grounds that that would be “communal” where are
they to learn of their own heritage: at Harvard? Chicago? Bonn
where there are excellent centres of Sanskritic learning

2.The one thing these three world-conquering creeds have in common, is their boundless self-righteousness in overrunning the societies of the non-chosen peoples. They have respected nothing of what was sacred to the Pagans, often not even their lives. Where these three have come in conflict with each other, they have not spared each other either, witness the Crusades and the Spanish Reconquista, the treatment meted out to the Christians in Muslim countries, the Armenian genocide, the wholesale persecution of (an already softened) Christianity in the Soviet block, the confrontations between the Chinese and the Uighurs, the persecution of the Communists in Khomeini's Iran. Each of them, in its prime, has (had) the unshakable conviction that it is bound to conquer the world, and that ultimately no opponent would survive to give testimony against its outrageous crimes.

3.Ghulam..I know you are still bit open to logic, discussion. I encourage you to read the Whole text of the Interview of RSS head, and then analyze it Vis-a-Vis this report by Saba. I find that these sort of reports are NOT based on Actual Interview. Its totally falsehood to claim that RSS is against normal relationship with Pakistan, that too hiding under a word like "reportedly".

Its doing great damage to Secularism, true journalistic Spirit.

The bigger impression what goes to the general public is: Muslim Intellectuals (including Saba) are innately hostile to anything "Hindu". As I quoted, elsewhere, a leading Analysist like Madhu Kishwar , who frankly accepted that as a fact. She wrote it some 10/15 years back!

These are very dangereous ploy. It may have worked earlier. But its getting exposed everyday, in this world of information boom.

Its very sad, that Westernized, Educated Muslims are still following this Anti-Hindu Stand. These same group of people discarded Gandhi before partition. After partition, they supported "Nehruvian Secularism" Model which was hostile to Hindu-Culture, History, Custom, Religion. Now, same Muslims are so desperate, that they have to take help of deceit, false-hood to farther their Cause, like this piece. This "boxed" situation is the creation of Muslims themselves, and nobody except themselves can get them out of that situation."

Its very Bad. Its very sad. Most importantly, nobody has an solution to this problem, except Muslims themselves. AS its their own Creation.

4.consternation in New Delhi where the authorities are poised to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), even though that nasty law, benignity personified when compared to AFSPA, has only a few weeks to run before it becomes defunct, but are stubbornly refusing to do anything about the demand to repeal the AFSPA. Quite simply, the political constituency adversely affected by POTA is numerically larger and politically more powerful. In contrast, those affected by the AFSPA, potentially the whole population of the seven States of the northeastern region, account for less than 40 million, a mere drop in the bucket in the broader Indian electoral context. Size does matter.

Where is "democracy" in all this? Where are the "aspirations of the people"? Elections alone create nothing. Those who speak of constitutional or democratic governance in Bihar, on the authority of the fact of elections, delude themselves, or deceive others. Nor, indeed, is there any real consolation in the academic fiction that all this violence and disorder is part of a "churning process" of "social transition" and that an inevitable and utopian future will emerge. Those who have been "churned" for decades now cannot find succour in this myth.

Many of the characteristics mentioned about Hindus here are really brahminical ethos that unfortunately forms the core of Hinduism. Self before everything else, elitism, a constant quest to differentiate or establish superiority over local population,constant recourse to "pragmatic thinking" which often stands for "lack of balls", feminization of culture, inability to establish and connect to larger cause, lack of passion, highly rigid and structured thought process, inability to connect to the soil and the locals are some of characteristics of brahminical ethos Such ethos may get admission to IIT or MIT but does not build a nation or a thriving community. Unfortunately India is condemned to be ruled by these brahminical ethos.

7.Its not only Sen, his ideological father Tagore, or Bankimchandra, Tilak or present day Nirod C. Choudhury and many others --all are severe Critic of Traditional Hinduism in many way. But there is a huge difference between their discourse and yours. They are "internal" critic, meaning they wanted to change certain things Hindu religion, and make it more "modern", more relevant. But your criticism of Hinduism is for exactly opposite reason. Its denigrating Hinduism, and push for Conversion. They rejected Colonial discourse on Caste..But you believe in that. So, there is basic difference in the reason of their criticism and yours. Their is for strengthning of Hindu Religion. Yours is for denigrating. Anyday, Hindus will accept their discourse plus like Swami Vivekanand. But we reject your discourse

8.Its you who is now twisting histing history. Savarkar was always a burning light of partriotism, nationalism. Pakistan was born precisely because, there were 35% Muslims in Indian Army during British period. Brits needed Indian Army to protect their interest during WWII. Thus Pakistan was delivered to Jinnah, as otherwise he would have given a call for Jihad, and Muslims (35% of Indian Army) would have deserted Indian Army. Had People listened Savarkar, and joined Indian Army in large Numbers, things would have been much different today.

Calcutta University, once India's premier University, reached its supreme Height under the Chancellorship of Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee! You know who is this Sir Ashutosh? he is father of BJJ's ideological father Shyamaprasad Mukherjee!

Why they could never have won (short of subjecting the whole of Vietnam to the My Lai experience or risking a few Hiroshimas, neither of which would have counted as much of a victory) is neatly encapsulated in an episode related by Jane Fonda in her recent autobiography, My Life So Far. The American actress was dubbed “Hanoi Jane” by her detractors for travelling to North Vietnam in 1972, in what was perceived as a propaganda coup for the “enemy”. She recalls that, on her way back to Hanoi one day from a trip into the countryside, the driver suddenly stopped the car, and her interpreter told her that an air raid was imminent. A passerby — “a young Vietnamese girl with some books wrapped in a rubber belt slung over her shoulder” — pulled her into one of the roadside holes that served as individual air raid shelters throughout the North.

They heard the thud of bombs falling in the distance, felt the ground shake. Given the all-clear by her interpreter, a distraught and blubbering Fonda emerged from the hole and, channelling her nation’s guilt, began “saying over and over to the girl, ‘I’m sorry, oh, I am so sorry, I’m so sorry’.” The girl stopped her and calmly delivered a response in Vietnamese. Her interpreter translated: “You shouldn’t cry for us. We know why we are fighting. The sadness should be for your country, your soldiers. They don’t know why they are fighting us.”

Three decades on, that simple yet powerful truth has retained — or perhaps regained — much of its validity.

10.Look at Kashmir today. There were only two State elections which were conducted fairly, both during Non-Congress Period(Morarji Desai & recently under Vajpayee). Local leaders (including Sheik Abdulla) ruthlessly cleansed Opposition, with active help from Congress. Role played by Indira was particularly disastrous. Infact, there is much similarity between the way Punjab was whipped up to consolidate Majority Vote and Kashmir. It was Congress Foreign Minister (Dinesh Singh) who openly spoke of lack of rationale of Continued presence of Muslims in India, if Kashmir secedes. Togadia was unheard of at that time! One well known historian wrote: Nehru virtually followed Hindu Nationalist policy in Kashmir after 1955.

Ultimately, by hook or by Crook, Congress has to remain in Power. Its left to looney Left fundamentalists to pop-up secularism. IHC (Indian historical congress- taken over by Marxists) even passed a resolution demanding Ban on Ramayana/Mahabharata on Televsion in late 1980s. Imagine that.

With all morality Gone, its now free for all. You can do anything to grab power. That's the right time for resurgence of any Rightwing. And the same thing is happening in India.

I am pretty sure that if all muslims had left for Pakistan in 1947 and the Kashmir valley was given to them, then we would have had fewer problems today . No problem with Babri Masjid,
no Godhra or Gujerat. No haj subsidies, no
special laws for muslims, and no vote bank politics. Since I can recall the muslims are always calling for special provisions for themselves. Secularism for them is acceptable as long as it permits them to live as a separate community , inside their Islamic framework,
Then I say to the secular muslims, why not live in a purely muslims country,if Islam means so much to you. And the Hindus can live in a truly secular , democratic set up as envisaged in the

11.European experience has shown that despite the
wealth and resources they have failed to bring the muslims into the mainstream, And I will strongly affirm that non muslims have no debt to muslims, to keep on accomodateing them, and
responding to their constant complaints for one reason or the other.Europeans have learnt this lesson.

Let us accept that Islam is a wonderful religion. It stands for enlightenment. So
muslims should accept the meassage that they are best served if they live and practice their religion in truly muslim countries..Pakistani's and Bangladeshi's have no minority problem. It is only the Hindus who have a king sized muslim problem, and now to add to that, we are being constantly lectured by mad christian evangelists.

I believe that one day Hindus "may" assert themselves, build a ccountry after their own ideals, and simply ignore the inevitable flak
from so called secularists, fundamentalist muslims, and christian evengelists. For this Hindu's must go by the old maxim, might is right.
Dont bother to win the war of words, which keeps on and on, without any results.

"When secularism was equated with secular tolerance and legitimated by Nehru's principled behavior, arguments that it was the responsibility of the majority community to make minorities secure could be openly made. Despite such open arguments in favor of minorities, Hindu nationalists were not able to win against Nehru. When principled secularism--not legitimating religion in political mobilization but maintaining a concern for minority welfare--was replaced by unprincipled secularism, the secular project began to unravel." (Quoted from Ashutosh Varshney's COntested Meanings

12.1. The steps taken by AIMPLB is too little, too late. Walking Backward to suit oneself on a "law" written in antiquity.

2. Historically, Single Uniform Personal Law never existed for all Muslims in India. Even a destroyer of India like Jinnah, advocated against it in 1938(or 39). Does it mean, Muslims living in India before AIMPLB(1970s) were less Muslims than today (when a Single Shahria is applied). Obviously not. This unmasks the whole AIMPLB project. Its not a religious project, rather a Political Project. Stepping stones of Building of monolith Muslim Nationhood. Interestingly, AIMPLB was formed in early 1970s to "saveguard" muslims from steps taken by Congress Govt! RSS/BJP was nowehere to be seen.

3. The real goal is to establish separate Sharia Courts in India which will subvert the rule of Law of nation-State called India. Its already setup in many states like West Bengal, Bihar, UP, Assam, even in Gujarat. A parallel process is undertaken to get the legal sanctity of it. This Separateness of Indian Muslims, whether in Education System, Woemn's rights, laws -- is against the Spirit of Indian Constitution, democracy, Secularism.

4. To the Author: Please don't try to fool us. Average Muslims living in small/big town/Cities, villages are fighting for their rights and trying to cope with their situation in best possible manner on a daily basis, but are being persecuted by Mullahs. I spoke about a poor Muslim Father from a North Bengal Village who cancelled his daughter's marriage because groom-party didn't accept Girl's father's demand of registering the marriage in Indian Marriage Court (after Nikahh). Because, as a father he wanted to protect his daughter's rights, which is universal. Where were you at that time? Or folks like Javed Akhtar, Shabana Azmi who lecture us everyday for Minority's Utopian "secularism"? There are 100s of events like this happening in Indian Villages. Why don't you talk about them, actively support them? I think the whole intelligentsia wants an answer from people like you. THAT'S MAKES YOU SUSPECT.

5. People like you are actually creating Monolith Muslim Political Community. Worst, you are trying, working to divide Hindu Community (from your other articles) along infinite Caste Lines and adding up the number to get political majority. I would say, its even worse than Traditional Muslims.

6. Mullahs are Muslim Rights activists like you are same. Both of you are interested in creating a Single Monolith Political Muslim Community. Cultural content may vary. What is most important here: both of you are working against South Asian Islam, which had its distinct blend of tolerance based on Societal relations. I can understand Mullah's contempt of Secular law. But why people like you talk about "secularism" and "Shariat" together? Don't you feel shamed?

7. Mini Kashmirs are being created in the heart of the nation, which will become uncontrollable in near future. Question is: when. As usual, you will have your Root-Cause theory. Didn't you support the Fradulent Email circulated after Godhra's massacre? Because, one "mulim" girl was misbehaved! I bet, yes.

13.Mr Gorgon you simply hide away from saying that Taliban are the worst blot for muslims. Where were muslims like Faruki when they were killing muslim woman on a daily basis. Where were the so called liberal muslims when Bamiyan Statues were being destroyed.

Where was the good interpretation of islam at that time. Liberal muslims have a pattern. When there values are attacked from outside then they are put in the front and those fundamentalists are shown as wrong interpreters of islam, when they have power then these fundamentalists come out and liberals take a back seat. At that time they dont fight these fundamentalists. Simply sit back. This is hypocricy sir.

You are i seem a great liberal. Where was your liberalism when 4 lakh kashmiri pandits were ethnically cleansed from the valley. When open call for jihad and killing of kashmiri pandits was started in 1991. Where were you guys when hindus were being butchered in Bangladesh.

You will say hindu fundamentalists talk to divert attention. I will say that all psuedo secularism where the sentiments and fears of hindu have no political importance so no action.

Liberals muslims dont stand against fundamentalist muslims they stand against outside attack and then start saying that this is the real islam not that. But when fundamentalist start doing there dirty dance they dont stand up and identify themselves as the real islam. At that time they cosy up and let it happen. Hypocrates

14.Experience from Western Europe has shown that
pluralist societies have lots of problems, and it is now recoganised that European societies have not been able to bring muslim immigrants into the mainstream.

The Europeans call muslims backward and dogmatic,
and the muslims criticise the Europeans for leading a sinful and immoral life style. About
50 % of immigrants in Scandinavia are without jobs and live on well fare. One in four
inmates in prisons are of muslim origin.
Scandinavians have stopped being nice to the immigrants, and are averse to giveing them jobs . The media is openly hostile to them

15.An RSSite is also fearful not just the average muslim. He fears another pakistan can happen. He fears that his woman are again going to be rapped. These are his fears some are real and some imaginary, but he has them. Simply they have been said that they are fundamentalists out to get muslims like hitler. This is what is wrong. When they equate RSS with hitler they create a image of hatred which makes these RSSites even more agressive.

16.You also said that i missed the point. I did not miss the point. Let me tell you what you wanted to say. You want a better and liberal interpretation of islam. You want that words like Kafir are not refered to as hindus or all the militant nature of islam be removed and a peaceful interpretation of islam comes out.

This is what you want. But this has not happened anywhere. Pakistan was the best place for such a thing to happen. We all know what has happened over there. This is just a dream of good people like you. Who are religious and want that islam should not get a bad name. But this is not going to happen. Further with your tendency to always bring religion you strengthen those fundamentalist, and mind you fundamentalists are always going to be there in any society.

You desire that there should not be any fundamentalist is a utopian situation which is not going to happen.

This is the summary you want an islam which is liberal and simply speaking it is not possible and i am totally and completely against anything where people's social mores are also given by ill-educated maulvis who call themselves islamic scholars.

Your kind of islam has not happened anywhere in the world for last 1400 years, so i dont see why it will happen in the coming 100 years also. I simply want that i person should remain religious and islamic but not bring it in open and try to interpret every other action through several complex systems that islam has create.

Make life easy and simple, not complex and intricate.

I understand that we do come from very different positions.

See you want an islamic system, it looks more obvious, all your solutions are embedded in that system. You want better intepretation of islam for your people, which is liberal, or maybe your interpretation of islam.

I simply dont accept a islamic system. So this is the major problem. So we will never be able to come to a point where we agree on a solution. Your solution is more islam, my solution is keep islam in your home and dont make it a political issue. Dont tell me that i am islamic and stuff like that. Come out and tell me that you are a person, a man a woman or something.

People trying to follow islam try to find justification in Quran almost always, there value system always come from there and not some original idea.

Christians came out of this problem by bringing into the concept of secularism, where they simply said that keep religion at home and let the public space be free of religion, where bible cannot dictate terms.

Islam has not been able to do this. If Islam wants a true revolution then you have to create a system where every justification should not and cannot be found in islam, quran, hadiths or fatwas. They have to be original.

Your problem with people like me is that we dont accept that islamic system. And that is why I believe in the position taken by sanghis. They are not like congress who say at the top of there voice secularism when it comes to hindus, keep religion away from public space, but when it comes to islam it does not apply the same yardstick. Until and unless the same yardstick is not applied there cannot be a secular system. This is precisely what i characterise as muslim appeasement. The moment islam finds strenght or majority it will naturally drift towards an islamic system. A liberal like you wants an islamic system what can i say about an islamic fundoo.

Will you ever give same right to a hindu in an islamic country. Look at bangaladesh and pakistan they have killed all the hindu population in these areas. Islam is designed to dominate. Islam is designed to make everybody islamic. There is no concept of minority protection. And if you will say dhimmis. Well I have read about the rights of dhimmis in islamic system. It is laughable if anybody tells me it is equal rights.

Accept the fact that every person who is islamic believe that islam is the ultimate religious system. Deep down that is what it is.

Anyways I guess till now i would have become a true hindu fundamentalist for you, who hates islam.

But let me tell i dont hate islam. The simple point is that i say what i think, and i think what i say. I dont sugarcoat. This is what i think. Do try to prove me wrong.

17.It is even ridiculous to see that these woman are trying to take the help of the same thing that they are opposing. They want to learn more islam and argue that there form of islam is better. It is the same argument that i had said that in islam all moderates actaully start discussing islam instead of the issue in hand.

I am reading a book by Arun Shourie which talks about fatwas given by Ullamas and these islamic clerics. it is ridiculous to even see the level of subjugation that these fatwas have put the islamic community in. Indeed some of the fatwas are so ridiculous that they discuss what kind of halal meat a muslim can eat and how he should clean himself after having sex. How the person should behave with his wife.

This kind of a battle cannot be won by islamic study. You will always be shown the door by the maulvis because they have history behind them. Throughout islamic history these maulivs have used Quran, hadiths to control the small social mores of the masses so they have a huge precedent favouring them.

Several fatwas given by islamic scholars, several ruling by islamic kings. Whenever you will try to reinterpret it they will give you there interpretation and also back it up with proof and you will loose the battle.

The simple point is that if you are serious about your agenda and not just reacting due to the pressure that sanghis have put on you then dare to say so what if it is written in quran, or hadith ot some other fatwa. I donot agree with them. I am an individual who lives in 21st centuery and my needs and my actions will be decided by me and nobody else. Define your own islam and do it

If India can call itself a "secular" country, it's laws should not be based on "religious authority" of ANY kind but on the rights of citizens irrespective of their religious affiliation.
Mr.Faruqi writes "The essential thrust of Quranic law is in the direction of fairness, equality and justice.." Such confidence! I wonder what criteria Mr.Faruqi uses to judge "fairness" - I say since we are a "secular" country, let us judge them on the basis of a simple document - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and see how "fair" your laws are.
Mr.Faruqi wants "more enlightened interpretations .. to be codified into laws" - thereby asking religious laws from one particular religion to be incorporated into Indian law - Nice! How insidious!
I couldn't care less if a particular religion "gave" more rights 1500 years back than it's adherents allow today - No "God" or religion has the authority to "grant" ME or any Indian Citizen his/her "Rights". My rights are mine by birth and so should they be to every self-respecting citizen.

18.The big news is ofcourse the pathetic conduct of EMS.This dude wrote a 900 page book on the freedom struggle from the communist angle.In that he took great pains to emphasize how the communist movement actually worked for the freedom of India and how they were the true patriots.
Now the released papers show how he begged the USSR to take a pro-china stance in 1962.Infact he expressed the gratitude of the CPI to Moscow for an editorial in Pravda when the paper took a pro-china stance.Such is the patriotosm!And he is supposed to be the one of the tallest leader the communist movement produced in India!!.Tallest traitor would be more appropriate.

. The third factor is psychological: the Hindus tend to be tolerant even of the non-Hindus; the Muslims tend to be intolerant even of each other.Such are the wages of monotheistic Islam --- and such, the bonus of polytheistic Hinduism. As Arnold Toynbee put it in his Dialogues with Daisaku Ikeda of Soka Gakkai of Japan: ``The Indian and East Asian attitude is pantheism. The Judaic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) have concentrated the element of divinity into a unique, omnipotent, creator god outside the universe, and this restriction of divinity has deprived nature --- including human nature --- of its divinity. By contrast, in India and Eastern Asia, before the impact of the modern West, the whole universe and everything in it, including non-human nature and man himself, was divine and, therefore, possessed, in human eyes, a sanctity and a dignity that have restrained man's impulse to indulge in greed by doing violence to non-human nature...I believe that mankind needs to revert to pantheism. The present adherents of the Judaic monotheistic religions are, all of them, ex-pantheists. This historical fact suggests that there might be some hope of their reverting to the pantheistic attitude, now that they have become aware of the badness of the consequences of the monotheistic lack of respect for nature.''

19.The effects of the KGB infiltration has inflicted serious damage to our body politic over the last five decades and still continues. I remember those days when the US PL480 funds were held in the RBI with the attached checks and controls while Soviet funds were kept in a Savings Account in SBI with no strictures. Remember the Nagarwala episode and his subsequent mysterious death ? We carried the servility to absurd lengths -- while Svetlana (Stalin's lone child) was treated as royalty because of her marriage to the uncle of Dinesh Singh (Congress minister), the government and much of the press vilified and cast aspersions on the marriage of the Chogyal of Sikkim to an American lady, claiming that she was a CIA plant! In collaboration with the USSR, we had drug factories, producing drugs the ailments for which were prevalent only in the Arctic! The Soviets undercut our products in Europe by paying us in worthless Rubles and earning hard currencies -- this Rupee trade (so dear to our Commies) tied our aprons to shoddy goods and manufacturing methods of the USSR and put us several decades behind! Since the infiltration was ALSO into the media, these stinks were never pursued.

No comments: