Indian Muslims

Rozaiba, who generally missed the nationalist bug but is a leftist liberal patriot, wrote this a while ago:

The treatment of Muslim characters in Indian movies is one that I could never relate to despite being affiliated with the members of this faith. But I realized that it may not be so far-fetched after passing through some of Delhi’s Muslim ghettos – areas where I felt a complete alien. I didn’t even want to be there. And hated it. But it is a reality. I suppose the edgy minority psyche plays into it. For example, while the Shias are a majority in Iran and one can comfortably interact with them, there isn’t that friction about faith, interacting with the minority Shias of Pakistan can at times prove tricky for those who are of the majority sect. Say like how it is with Whites and Blacks communicating in America. An over-conscious political correctness takes precedence and prevents a free-flowing communication. But there’s more to the roles of Muslims in Indian cinema. After the brief Delhi experience, I am not sure if the portrayal is one of mere stereotypes – it may well be a portrayal of an ugly, uneasy reality. An always edgy community which feels securest in its isolationist cocoon. And the edginess keeps increasing in the aftermath of the Gujrat massacres where the pogrom gives way to legislated demonisation of a community.

What Nasah says plays into this... but it goes without saying that Indian Muslims in general just don`t have the kind of resources or financial capacity that other places have. Nasah is the uppercrust Shabbana Azmi/Javed Akhtar type and therefore personally progressive in his thinking (though blind about Gandhian bigotry clearly but thats a separate issue)... what he says is right. If they managed to... but why is it that Indian Muslims stick to ghetto muslim mentality more strongly than other places...

Romair,

(but where in the world are they?............if they are 15% of the indian population, then every one out of 6 to 7 indians participating on this site,)

There are IMs out their- Ballu and Nasah, for instance. The proportion out of total population is immaterial what is important is the proportion of IMs who are reasonably well (and English) educated to be on the Net. The overall literacy rate among IMs is much lower as compared to the overall population. That`s why the low proportion of IMs on chowk.

(yet, at least on this site, indian kashmiris are never there to comment on who is doing what to them)

Your compatriot Maulana Urstruly (pbuh) would no doubt have a convincing explanation for that- all Kash Muslims have been murdered by the Indian Army.

Regards

``#341 by nasah on November 12, 2006 5:54pm PT
India is a place where there are three Christian states -- and one Muslim state -- they fight they complain they live together. They discriminate against each other here and there -- so what -- tell me is there a country in the world that does not discriminate here and there at one time or another.

As a Muslim let me try to settle the issue -- Muslims are doing much better in India than Muslims in other places -- if they can only get rid of their congenital disease of carrying their religion on their sleeves. Period. ``

hats off to you sir for calling a spade a spade. muslims in india can be a real force to reckon with if they stop looking westwards and start looking inwards for inspiration. muslims who have done that have made it big and are doing very well like christians.

i wonder why haven`t hawks like ylh, urstruly and behram not ripped your post apart with abuses.

rgds,

devkant.

Re:nauman72

[..Indians always talk about confidence building measures. But unless there is progress about resolution of Kashmir dispute, we can’t go much further in CBMs.....]

Why not? Why cant we have bigger and bolder CBMs across the board and why predicate everything on Kashmir?

Look, we have a territorial dispute in Kashmir. Its a legacy of a bitter, messy partition so much so that educated people like manto and sadna are still debating nuances to this day. When people are not willing to concede 60 year old debating points, it is absurd to imagine that one side will conceded territory. The only option to move forward is to put Kashmir on the backburner and focus on bigger and bigger CBMs. For instance, increased trade, travel, simplifired visa procedures, transit rights of goods to central asia, allow students to study on either side are all CBMs that can significantly alter the current geo-political landscape.

Sadna,

If Durga Das, your favorite who was an Indian reporter close to Gandhi, Jinnah and Fazli Hussain and whose account you have always accepted as the truth and nothing but, does not mention it ... then you have no right to abuse me for not accepting your point of view.

Since you claimed that he said it and you`ve backed out of your claim.. I can`t comment on S Gopal either, because my experience is that you always distort and make claims that actually don`t exist. So I can`t comment on S. Gopal.

This whole ``difference in manifesto`` was brought up by you as an excuse as to why Congress was right in cooperating.

When I opined in my post 312 that ``tenancy reform`` was not the major reason of Congress-Muslim League break in 1937 but rather the Congress Party`s inability to work with anyone who did not bow down to them.. you wrote:

On the contrary, it is made clear by the three authors I quoted that the Congress differed fundamentally with the Muslim League on tenantry reforms.

Using your own favorite Durga Das ... one of the ``three`` authors you claimed to be siding with you... I asked you to show me where in Chapter 25 ``Jinnah- Break with Congress`` in the book ``Curzon to Nehru`` did Durga Das raise the issue of tenancy reform, you declared:

``I didn`t say anywhere that tenancy reform had caused the break.``

However... in 315 you had written:

``If the Congress had entered into a coalition with the Muslim League without asking for Muslim League agreement to the Congress platform, the Congress would be shortchanging the voters it had made promises to and who voted for it on the basis of those promises. ``

....

It is all there... you said it yourself and backing out of it now confirms what people have been saying about your integrity all that time. I actually only feel bad for the people who actually believe in you... So don`t you think it is time that you atleast accepted that you tied yourself in knot by making an erroneous claim and a technicality... yes we know that Muslim League and Congress differed on Tenancy reform... but why lie about the real reasons of the break? I know the real reason ofcourse. It proves what many historians and academics have already been saying... I leave it up to you to come clean with yourself.

Now don`t go about accusing me of bad mouthing you. You made these statements... I didn`t.

#358
huh?
Why wouldn`t Congress`s manifesto and actions on its manifesto be a reason for Congress actions wrt coalition? If Durga Das doesn`t mention it as a reason for Congress`s actions wrt coalition, S. Gopal certainly does.

My original statement was #263
``Jinnah offered coalition ministries to the Congress in 1937 only on condition that the Congress would accept A. Muslim League as the sole representative of Muslims thereby appointing all Muslims to the ministry and B. Muslim League would hold a communal veto, which is a veto by which the minority party would undo the Congress`s legislative majority as and when it pleased(the U.P tenantry reforms bill of Congress platform would be one instance as was clear by the ML stance `Islam in danger` stance against this bill in the UP legislative assembly in 1937-1938).``

And thats that. If you want to keep whining about this point, be my guest.

Re #357
If you don`t understand the dynamics of REAL elected majorities, is it my fault? Another example is how the BJP came to power with construction of Ram temple on its manifesto. To form a coalition the NDA it had to ditch the Ram temple construction part of its manifesto. As a result, in the next election BJP lost the support of a section of its grassroots cadres support which had earlier helped organise BJP`s campaign in the previous elections. That is because in India, Allah, Army or America do not come between a political party and its suffering the consequences of not fulfilling its promises to voters.

Dear Sadna,

As usual you 357 is an attempt to derail the issue because you know you`ve been caught red handed... so I`ll ignore that.

The issue at hand was why Jinnah broke with Congress. You brought up Tenancy reform as an example of the difference in the manifestos and claimed that Durga Das amongst others mentioned it in his book as the reason.

When I pointed out that Durga Das in his book ``Curzon to Nehru`` Chapter No. 25 ``Jinnah: the Break with Congress`` did not mention the difference in platform/manifesto as a reason for the break ... you claimed that you never cited this as a reason for the break. If you did not claim this as the reason for the break, why, one may ask, would you bring it up in this discussion when you yourself wrote:

``If the Congress had entered into a coalition with the Muslim League without asking for Muslim League agreement to the Congress platform, the Congress would be shortchanging the voters it had made promises to and who voted for it on the basis of those promises. ``

Why do you insist on fooling the people like this and I am not badmouthing you... I am pointing out the obvious and glaring contradiction in your own statements. Why do you start whining ``evil Paki badmouthing me`` everytime I expose your attempt to be clever by half... Why don`t you just accept that you made a major mistake (like the time you claimed that Azad was a prime ministerial candidate and never brought up anything to back that up despite showing a lot of bravado) and that you apologise?

The funny thing is the present Pak ruling coalition has an absolute majority in the National Assembly and has enough opposition support to easily pass the Women`s Protection Bill even without MMA`s support.

But because the present ruling coalition`s main party PML(Q) was not voted into power based on any particular platform of its explicitly stated POSITIONS on ISSUES, it is unable to undertake the risk of using its absolute majority to pass the Bill.

#355
I spoke of tenancy reforms being a subject on which the Congress and ML did not agree.
I spoke of tenancy reforms being an issue which any Congress coalition with ML on ML`s terms would have put Congress in a bad position wrt those voters who had voted Congress into absolute majority in the U.P legislature on basis of Congress`s promises to them on tenancy reforms.
I spoke of Congress`s absolute majority and its promises to its voters as very good reason for Congress to impose terms for coalition on ML which the ML refused.
I spoke of Congress terms for coalition in UP being nowhere as sweeping as the terms imposed by Jinnah on the Congress including on its nationwide agenda, for any agreement.

I don`t understand your badmouthing me for making these points which most of the authors I quoted mentioned. S. Gopal mentioned land reforms even in the context of League-Congress talks on coalition. Durga Das mentioned tenancy reform as a reason for Congress`s winning a majority and he mentioned Congress fulfilling its promises on tenancy reform as the primary reason for increasing ML- Congress disaffection in UP. S. Gopal mentioned the Congress`s land reform agenda as a reason for Muslim landlords` to be estranged from the Congress and for them drawing closer to Jinnah/ML.

I have posted enough references and explained clearly enough for any person of average intelligence to understand my point. I have however no further answer to any chowkie badmouthing me for expressing it - and that is all you particularly have been doing.

Dear Sadna,

As I mentioned in my previous post. Everyone on Chowk knows our stated positions. If there was even a little bit of convergence, I am sure 60 years ago there wouldn`t have been a partition. So I am going to put this aside.

I am more interested in your flip flops and contradictions...

When I opined in my post 312 that ``tenancy reform`` was not the major reason of Congress-Muslim League break in 1937 but rather the Congress Party`s inability to work with anyone who did not bow down to them.. you wrote:

On the contrary, it is made clear by the three authors I quoted that the Congress differed fundamentally with the Muslim League on tenantry reforms.

Using your own favorite Durga Das ... one of the ``three`` authors you claimed to be siding with you... I asked you to show me where in Chapter 25 ``Jinnah- Break with Congress`` in the book ``Curzon to Nehru`` did Durga Das raise the issue of tenancy reform, you declared:

``I didn`t say anywhere that tenancy reform had caused the break.``

However... in 315 you had written:

``If the Congress had entered into a coalition with the Muslim League without asking for Muslim League agreement to the Congress platform, the Congress would be shortchanging the voters it had made promises to and who voted for it on the basis of those promises. ``

....

So don`t you think it is time that you atleast accepted that you tied yourself in knot by making an erroneous claim and a technicality... yes we know that Muslim League and Congress differed on Tenancy reform... but why lie about the real reasons of the break?

I know the real reason ofcourse. It proves what many historians and academics have already been saying... I leave it up to you to come clean with yourself.

Dear Nasah,

If only Sadna was enough. She is regurgitating information which is completely irrelevant. It is obviously quite clear that facts lead to perspectives. Had this not been so, Muslim League and Congress would not have had a break in the first place. The problem with her is that she cannot accept anyone who disagrees with her. She goes into a tirade against how Pakis this Pakis that Paki victim mentality... not for a second realising that if she has the right to regurgitate the Congress point of view which was the original sin of the subcontinent, I too have the right to put up my point of view.

As for ``mentally deranged debate``... you and Tahmed are funny people. My accusations against Gandhi as a racist, casteist bigot who was - in the words of Ambedkar and M N Roy- a medieval fascist.... is based on actual historical evidence which I have produced in detail on several occasions... to say that he never encouraged violence is simply not the point. Infact all his movements inevitably led to violence... but what I have accused him of is Gandhi`s casteist and racist world view which is a fact of history no matter how much you want to evade it.

-YLH

Re: # 350

Sadna:

I do have a life...

By the way, I might even be a supporter of your perspective.

Anil

Re: # 349

what about nasah and ballukhan?

Re: # 349

Romair:

``.........but where in the world are they?............if they are 15% of the indian population, then every one out of 6 to 7 indians participating on this site,``

Those Muslim Indians, Farzana Versey included, who can make difference are either non-political or too busy climbing up the ladder to realize their Indian dreams. You would find them in Moradabad, you would find them in Benares, you would find them in Hydrabad, you find them in Bangalore (now Bangaloruu), Mumbai and Chennai. I can assure you would find them.

Anil

anil #345
``Similarly, Sadna is presenting one Indian perspective (there can be many more Indian perspective).``

Did I ever say there were not more perspectives. I am responding explicitly to vicious personal attacks on me for one post of mine #236 where I posted my personal opinion just like everyone else. Chowkies in general, including yourself, need to get yourselves a life instead of attacking other posters for posting on chowk.

..........there is something i have always found strange.........whenever an issue related to indian muslims or muslims in india is discussed, the actual affected parties are never amongst the participants.........i have always wondered why?..........

.........for example, when kashmiris are discussed, no one discussing the subject is a kashmiri........at least not an indian kashmiri........or an indian muslim kashmiri..........indians keeps saying how much kashmiris are being terrorized by pakistanis.........pakistanis keep saying how many kashmiris are being killed by indians..........yet, at least on this site, indian kashmiris are never there to comment on who is doing what to them.....

..........the same is the case with indian muslims.........people keep trying to inform others, how well off or poorly they are doing........yet, one rarely sees an indian muslim on this site.........

.........wouldn`t indian muslims, themselves, be the ultimate authority on how they are doing.........if they feel they are doing fine in india, that should be the final word.........if they feel they are not doing fine, then that should be the final word........

.........but where in the world are they?............if they are 15% of the indian population, then every one out of 6 to 7 indians participating on this site, should be an indian muslim.........there are indian hindus on this site, indian sikhs and i assume indian christians.........where are the indian muslims?............one would think they would be the most interested in a site like this, as many probably have relatives on both sides of the border..........