India: The Empire Strikes Back

Re: # 47 Mr Ecobomb and Salim... thanks you both are kind to kind words. Prsently I am rejected now most times, as supported Brother Masadi. Its fine I just stopped so they can not reject, instead I listen to good hindustani music and pet my cats. As you know I speak urdu so not in habit of abusing ( There is kind of fad when to punjabis met and frendly they start with abuses if you do not use abuses they feel some thing is wrong. I think there is some thing more than fad). It is my desire to put pics of both cats here do not know how. May some body will write about cats and can just put them on net.

#84 Posted by kaurasach

[India can not gloat. Again, India is a beggar and a leper covered in silken clothes. ]

No. India is a wealthy man covered in rags. But it's true that gloating is beyond moronic.

#83 Posted by Salim_Chauhan

[IB Sahib,
So well stated. I agree with you and the reason I am so harsh on us Muslims is that I am one myself and Islam deserves much better than what we represent to outsiders (and even to our own.)]

This is true. The actual evildoings of Muslims over the ages cannot be rewritten - it is too big a project. But the Koran and especially mo's life history are due for a rewrite. The Muslims deserve something much better.


[No religion has contributed more Muslims to Islam than has Hinduism - consider India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and as far as Cambodia. ]

Yes. This contribution is important. Because when 100% of the population is Muslim, there won't be anyone to question anything. Now that's utopia.


[Islam, with its emphasis on equality of mankind,....]

Yes, all men (Muslims) are equal under Islam. Non-Muslims will be tolerated IF they pay the right taxes (prescribed by God, of course), and behave.


[ universal brotherhood,...]


...of all Muslims. If you are non-Muslim, you're outside the pale - even if you are the "prophet's" parents.


[... an inherently anti-racist philosophy,...}

There was never any mention of race - because like a frog in a well, mo's world was limited to bedouins. But when presented with two slave-girls - one white, and one not - guess which one he picked (with his right hand, of course).


[...and solid monotheistic values is a natural and appealing path for many Hindus.]

Yes. Because if they did not "convert" they would be unable to think independently - and this would be a major impediment in their spiritual quest. After "conversion" they could then be studying the badly done cut-and-paste nonsense fifty times a day - day in and day out.



[Muslims must behave in a way that will make Hindus tear down the doors of mosques to be let in rather than tear down the domes of mosques to bury those inside.]

Yes. Hindus have done this repeatedly - torn down the domes of mosques to bury those inside.


[Instead we try to emulate the Catholics in brutality, the Protestants in extremism, the Jews in selfishness, the Hindus in confusion, and the Buddhists in lack of accountability.....]

....in keeping with the "holy" trends set by that good man, mo.

Bania mentality here. We've more money more money more money.....less glory, character, respect, humanity.....but more money more money.....that will be looted by another invader soon.....

Such gloating is like a knajar who is whored his own family to strangers and then boasts he has more money than the customers.

India can not gloat. Again, India is a beggar and a leper covered in silken clothes.

IB #79 {" agree with you post 76 (although you had been a bit harsh on us - Muslims ) there is a false sense of superiority among Muslims - and specially in Pakistan with regards to Hindu(s) of India .
... It is more to do with 'Jahalat' then religion.
I hope we change - and try to respect other religions. "}

IB Sahib,
So well stated. I agree with you and the reason I am so harsh on us Muslims is that I am one myself and Islam deserves much better than what we represent to outsiders (and even to our own.)

No religion has contributed more Muslims to Islam than has Hinduism - consider India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and as far as Cambodia.

Islam, with its emphasis on equality of mankind, universal brotherhood, an inherently anti-racist philosophy, and solid monotheistic values is a natural and appealing path for many Hindus.

Muslims must behave in a way that will make Hindus tear down the doors of mosques to be let in rather than tear down the domes of mosques to bury those inside.

Instead we try to emulate the Catholics in brutality, the Protestants in extremism, the Jews in selfishness, the Hindus in confusion, and the Buddhists in lack of accountability.

#80 Jang {"salim bhayya, the support for pakistan movement was not out of religiuous bigotary..if at all it was out of little-bit of racism..one that says that the ashrafiya class deserves a jagir. that is why they were perfectly happy with a moth-eaten solution leaving all the kala-kaluta hindustani muslims behind."}

Jang,
That is a very clever and ingenious approach to defining the haphazard, unplanned, and rather stupid leap at creating Pakistan. Clearly, there are plenty of "ashrafi" Muslims left in India and many, many "kala-kaluta hindustanis" undertook the migration. If anything the migration was more geographical than class-oriented - consider almost all of Delhi, all of East Punjab, much of western UP, large parts of Gujarat, and much of western Rajasthan. In fact, the largest portion of "kala-kaluta" Muslims lived in East Bengal, which did become Pakistan - for almost 25 years.

Re: # 80 jang ,
the movement of Pakistan was not 'religious' - it was a movement for 'the rights of muslims and minorities of south asia' - nothing to do with racism . Pakistan was used as a bargaining stategy but in the end it was people like Nehru/Sardar who cornered MAJ in 1946 - hence, Pakistan came into being.
Good reading would be why Mohammad Ali Jinnah (amb. of Hindu-Muslim Unity) a prok eater became Quaid-e-Azam ( voice of Muslims of United India - even with the muslims who stayed in India atleast they voted for Muslim League in Hindu Dominated Areas ) .

As for Hindus - there's a cast system which is present in Shining India then there's discrimination towards muslims, sikhs and other minorities in India . It's not racism as Salim Cohan said - it's discrimination . But treatment of lower casts by upper-class is classed as racism.

salim bhayya, the support for pakistan movement was not out of religiuous bigotary..if at all it was out of little-bit of racism..one that says that the ashrafiya class deserves a jagir. that is why they were perfectly happy with a moth-eaten solution leaving all the kala-kaluta hindustani muslims behind.

Re: # 76 Salim Bhai -
I agree with you post 76 (although you had been a bit harsh on us - Muslims ) there is a false sense of superiority among Muslims - and specially in Pakistan with regards to Hindu(s) of India .
I was posted somewhere in remote Pakistan where I had interactions with lot of our rural-class ( not educated yet politically aware ) - most of them still thinks one muslim equals to 10 hindus syndrome. I kept quiet!
It's always easy to blame other's . I believe we muslims should seriously question ourselves as to how we act specially with regards to non-muslims. It is more to do with 'Jahalat' then religion.
I hope we change - and try to respect other religions.

beej, :)

Echoboom #47 {"YOU SAID IT MAN! Mr. ahmed Madani , the most knowledgeable, non-intellectualised,, original, and un-cynical, non-westocicated interactor has told us that.
"}

Echo Sahib,
I have always admired Mr. Ahmad Madani's unique style and his totally honest and unpredictable interpretation of events and philosophies. The man is informed, but not bigoted, confident but not cocky, knowledgable but not Mr. know-it-all, and polite but not subservient. I say we make him run for high office.

BJ Kumar #51 {"I use the term “racist� with relation to those Muslims (on either side of the border) who supported the separation of a people based on the religious label!
...
The worldwide trait of a racist is that racists make a distinction among “their kind� from the “other kind�. ...PS: Talking of getting rid of foolishness, have you made up yet with Ms. Saminasha on that most ludicrous, meaningless, and long-running chowk feud?"}

BJ Bhayya,
I understand your definition of "racist," but permit me to say that you are ignoring a very basic element of racism. The term you should use for Muslims demanding a separate homeland is "religious bigots." Racism has to do with the emphasis on physical, racial, ethnic characteristics of people which are quite visible externally and usually are difficult to change - skin/hair/eye color, hair texture, nasal appearance, height, shape of lips/eyes/eyebrows, etc.. Religious bigots usually welcome converts to their cause, racists want to keep their group "pure." Muslims are by definition not racists (although events in Sudan, East Pakistan, and some parts of Afghanistan are suspected exceptions!). Muslims, unfortunately have always been religious bigots - even among themselves. Racism is definitely stupid and displays extreme insecurity among racists. Religious bigotry is somewhat less stupid and displays a false sense of superiority among Muslims. It is somewhat less stupid because the victims can always convert, but then that is not a decent excuse.

As to the matter of the long-running feud, all I can say is:

Is the bear Catholic?
Does the Pope shit in the woods?

#various Laddu

Ama Laddu, couldn't you be a bit sweeter?

I have stated elsewhere before that I have no expertise on the Quran. Please direct your questions to those who claim such expertise - perhaps mian T32 will volunteer?! :)

You could also ask Naqshbandi sahib, who ranks it number one (to ten) in his list of top fifty books to read and reread and reread!

#71 Kambakhat Kaal (K2)

[Gandhiji ...advocating return to the varna system.]

When did he advocate that stuff?!

Don't tell me you have started buying into Yasser's (highly dubious) "sources".

Knowing you, it won't surprise me if you are buying into the same on purpose! :)

Here is a bit from Wikipedia on Gandhiji's faith:

Gandhi was born a Hindu and practised Hinduism all his life, deriving most of his principles from Hinduism. As a common Hindu, he believed all religions to be equal, and rejected all efforts to convert him to a different faith. He was an avid theologian and read extensively about all major religions. He had the following to say about Hinduism:

"Hinduism as I know it entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being ... When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon, I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life has been full of tragedies and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita."

Gandhi wrote a commentary on the Bhagavad Gita in Gujarati. The Gujarati manuscript was translated into English by Mahadev Desai, who provided an additional introduction and commentary. It was published with a Foreword by Gandhi in 1946.[26][27]

Gandhi believed that at the core of every religion was truth and love (compassion, nonviolence and the Golden Rule (Ethic of Reciprocity)). He also questioned hypocrisy, malpractices and dogma in all religions and was a tireless social reformer. Some of his comments on various religions are:

"Thus if I could not accept Christianity either as a perfect, or the greatest religion, neither was I then convinced of Hinduism being such. Hindu defects were pressingly visible to me. If untouchability could be a part of Hinduism, it could but be a rotten part or an excrescence. I could not understand the raison d'etre of a multitude of sects and castes. What was the meaning of saying that the Vedas were the inspired Word of God? If they were inspired, why not also the Bible and the Koran? As Christian friends were endeavouring to convert me, so were Muslim friends. Abdullah Sheth had kept on inducing me to study Islam, and of course he had always something to say regarding its beauty." (source: his autobiography)

"As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side."

"The sayings of Muhammad are a treasure of wisdom, not only for Muslims but for all of mankind."

Later in his life when he was asked whether he was a Hindu, he replied:

"Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew."

In spite of their deep reverence to each other, Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore engaged in protracted debates more than once. These debates exemplify the philosophical differences between the two most famous Indians at the time. On January 15, 1934, an earthquake hit Bihar and caused extensive damage and loss of life. Gandhi maintained this was because of the sin committed by upper caste Hindus by not letting untouchables in their temples (Gandhi was committed to the cause of improving the fate of untouchables, referring to them as Harijans, people of Krishna). Tagore vehemently opposed Gandhi's stance, maintaining that an earthquake can only be caused by natural forces, not moral reasons, however repugnant the practice of untouchability may be.

IB: The Supreme Court did not call for the release of any suspected criminals. It called for the application of habeas corpus, which means that any individual detained by the government must be produced before court within a specified time (generally 24 hours) and the charges specified and considered through judicial procedure.

All the government had to do was submit evidence for judicial review. Instead it chose to simply free these indivduals. Thus proving that either

1. it did not have evidence against these individuals, and thus was demonstrating once again musharraf's disregard for the basic rights of Pakistanis; or

2. it had the evidence, but chose to free these indivdiuals anyway for political reasons (i.e. for the US and the international community to conclude what you concluded (i.e. that if musharraf goes, the terrorists win). In this case, this would demonstrate the extent to which musharraf is prepared to go to cling to his illegitimate power.

Take your pick. :-)