Pagans and Competitive Conversions

Murad sahab,

You can not explain Hinduism on the basis of principles governing the Religions of Books. Its OK if you call it a pagan religion. They worship All. They can worship even Allah. No problem! They already worship Nizamuddin Aulia, Sai baba, Jesus Christ, Lord Buddha. Given a chance, they will offer puja at Kaba also. You know, they worship mother Ganga, the Sun and all types of stones. They worship Pipal, Nag devta, holy cow and all. I have seen even brahmins worshiping all these stones, rivers, heavenly bodies and animals as worshiped by backward castes and tribals. So, there you are not CORRECT. You must call Hinduism a pagan religion and you must, therefore, treat the tribals and the backward castes as Hindus. You MUST comment on my interact if you wish to be FAIR and IMPARTIAL.

samar

nothing could be more vacuous and empty than the so called religious teachings ,moorings,
or any thing else we migh like to call it( by religion i clearly imply all religions without exception).The so called seers, prophets(no offence meant to any one)could only propound
very embarassing postulates of something as fudmental as death and what happens after death.They (including written dogmas) are at the best ,good at telling us about the right conduct and way to live,which to my mind to the best of my knowledge not a single human
could attain or adopt a iota of these moral postulates.Nothing cold be more irrelevant than religion.IT IS EACH ONE UNTO HIMSELF.

Dear Murad,

Instead of trying to define Hinduism how about trying to experience it?

Hinduism is a Pagan/Heathen/Kafir practice and is no different from animism or the numerous ``tribal`` faiths of India. The Puranas say that there are 330 million gods and goddesses (at least that`s how many who attended the wedding of Shiva and Parvati!). Hindu practice and custom is so vast and varied that it is impossible to categorise it.

So what if tribals don`t worship Shiva and Vishnu. A number of Hindus do not either. There are a number of Ishtadevatas (favourite deities) that anyone can turn to. In Tamil Nadu where I am from my ancestral village has its own gatekeeping deity - the local Ayyanar - who must be worshipped before one enters the village. Many of the popular deities of today have multiple origins. Kartik the son of Shiva is closely linked to Murugan an ancient Tamil deity who is said to have inhabited the mountains. Krishna is related to the herdsman`s deities in the North as well as TamilNadu`s Mayon - a deity who protected the crops from the rain. Every region of India has its own sub-plots to add to the Ramayan and Mahabharat. There are classical as well as folk and tribal versions.

Hindus aren`t necessarily tied to the Vedas. In fact you are unlikely to find the Vedas in print in the house of the typical Hindu, North, South, East or West. If you come to TamilNadu you may find the Vishnu Sahasranamam or Tiruppavai. In UP you may find the Ramcharitamanas and in Bengal the GitaGovindam if not the easier to read works of Sri Ramakrishna and Vivekananda.

Brahmins - there again I gotcha - aren`t integral to the practice of Hinduism. Some families involve them in all ceremonies, some others in a few and yet others rarely at all. And then which Brahmin are we talking about. I am a Tamil Brahmin who was brought up on a vegetarian diet (no eggs please). My  Bengali Brahmin mother-in-law will eat fish and mutton but no chicken or eggs! And my Kashmiri Brahmin friends will eat most vegetables -except onions and garlic- mutton, but no fish, chicken or pork! To imagine that this diverse bunch actually retarded India`s progress is fanciful! The Brahmins aren`t a monolithic group of people. Few outside the ambit of caste know that every caste considers itself the most important or worthiest. The system has been perverted and is already in decline. I am sure that it will wither away in the decades to come.

The Hindu ritual is aimed at ensuring a happy life on earth for oneself and his/her progeny. The Hindu`s concept of heaven and hell is allegorical at best. There is no concept of blasphemy. And to be struck dead by God is the ultimate salvation!

A number of neo-Pagan movements have sprung up in Europe of late. They are turning to Hinduism to find their philosophical moorings. The Shiva temple that is coming up in Kauai, Hawaai, courtesy the Shaiva Siddhanta Church has shrines dedicated to the local deities. Hindus as a rule neither approve nor disapprove anything absolutely and definitely not because some scripture says so! Ethics are to be created by the human being and must lead to the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

A number of ``hindu`` organisations have been working with the tribal populations of India. The Vanvasi Kalyan Kendra runs 1000s of schools all over India. Some of the BJP`s scheduled tribe MPs are alumni of these schools.

Murad,

I object to your useage of the word PRIEST in Islam, anointed, sanctified or otherwise.

Omar

RV & Rana (and Not Iconoclast):

I guess that Murad`s reference to Timur became a sort of Rorschach test where everybody read whatetever their biases were.

Based on Murad`s overall article, I pegged him as thoroughly Indian, including a tendency to overanalyze everything. I took his reference to Timur as an off-the-cuff remark not signifying pride or historical authenticity. So I was rather surprised by the passions it provoked.

With regard to RV`s comment of purity of descent: Obviously, if one claims descent from somebody who existed 500 years ago, it is axiomatic that there must be some other blood in there - human beings are not hermaphrodites after all. So you were clearly projecting your experiences with other Muslims onto Murad`s statement as I was projecting my secular biases onto Murad.

I feel partially vindicated by Murad`s clarification vis-a-vis Timur.

Anyway, storm in a teacup (or even teaspoon) - I`m done on this topic.

Baig,

there you Start again.

1. Kartikeya is very different in South india -- he is THE war God in South. In North, the war God is shiv [but only in areas where shiv is not the monotheistic deity]. The very form of Hinduism is extremely different in different areas and in different sects.

2. Brahmin is not a priest -- there are Vaidya or Vaids [who were, guess what, merely doctors] and then there are Mohyal Brahmans [who claim descent from Raja Dahir] who were warriors. So Brahmins are not synonymous with priesthood.

And just as you`d like to claim descent from some ``Dudes`` of past -- while taking pride in nice buildings [which, knowing the favourite Indian past-time of taking a leak on a wall, are merely nice targets] and ignoring the bloodshed and torture wroght upon the innocent -- so does feel everyone from ``RSS`` and Shiv Saina.

[I guess you should think of bonding with them]

3. The atheistic system of Hinduism is at least from 800BC [Brihaspati Shartra]. Arthshastra has allusions to it. Hinduism really has nothing to do with Gods.

It is just people calling themselves so.

There are three aspects of Hinduism -- myths, practices and philosophy [which vary from place to place and from sect to sect]. ... But this a lesson for one willing to stop and listen

[Baithe hum har bazm mein lekin/Jhar ke uthe apna daman].

To continue your logic, since Ramdas is not saint in North India, all Marathas are not Hindu. Since Bombay derived its name from Mumba Devi, a Devi not in S India, Bombay is annexed from some alien culture. Since, Marwaris have dieties not present elsewhere, they are not Hindus -- or every abherrance from ``norm`` [``norm``, which perhaps only you CAN define].

To be precise, whoever has tried making Hinduism uniform has ended up creating another sect.

There have been so many reform movements -- which were against caste system and what not --that have ended up being sects, but are still part of hinduism.

4. To equate Hinduism with brahmanism is a folley [which you seem to resort to very often]. You are merely critisizing what Shankracharya`s definition of Hindu was -- there are so many sects [at least a few hundred] that don`t follow his directions. There are more people outside the domain of Shankracharyas then people following him.

5. ``Rogues and charlatans are found among ..... Babas, Sants, Fakirs, Pirs, etc., using common conjuring tricks, promising miraculous boons and threatening dire curses or consequences.`` Going about with such statement is really being uneducated, for you are kicking someone`s faith.

6. (3) Again, you are going about criticising Hinduism -- silly statements, since a religion has evolved it looses some ground. Is a Radha-Swamy [sect that worships Guru Granth Sahib] not a Hindu.

7. Before you parrot something else perhaps you ought to ponder upon Hindutva, a very well defined philosophy. [And the present Hindutva doesn`t owe to Bamkin Chandra, as someone was saying].

It is a very negative emotion -- continually playing on the past, something that happened centuries ago, committed by generations dead long past -- massacre of Kashi, Somnath and the aftermath of 1857 revolt is continuously repeated in that trashy RSS literature -- as the RSS`s motto says ``Dharmo Rakshti Rakshtah``, protecting religion will protect you [interestlingly Dharma never meant religion till recently, it is a loose term meaning duty or righteousness, as buddhist use it in that sense, and is used in phrases as ``manav dharma`` or human duty].

But protect from what ?

In this philosophy, a fear is first created -- by equating senseless history with actual group of people, a perticular religion -- and is directed towards concrete entity -- they are the people who did it to us -- never mind the fact that most of our ancestors survived the history because they were too insignificant or too timid [had they been rulers or higher ups, they would`ve been murdered when next ruler came to power] -- no one can claim that he`s a direct descendent of Banda Bahadur, and therefore has an axe to grind against the Moghul descendents.

Perhaps the reason why a ruler made sure that previous rulers were burried under the monsterous monuments was that it would would make sure dead doesn`t rise and avenge hinself [so it`s really just weight of stones and not the monument].

Maybe, this juvenile practice of making sense out of history -- equating it with classes or religion or anything else -- should be stopped, for the greatest such exercise -- communism -- tended to trivilise history, was farsical and tragic and made people automatons of a controlled thought not much different than the average mob in Sub-continent searching for the next neck.

And what has your critique of a perticular religion got to do with it. Hindutva is same as Iqbal saying in Lahore that a muslim can`t think of living with those of other relgion -- utter paranoia and hatred for others. And I must point that voilence in the tribal regions is between tribals of different faith.

All I can say of history is that I HAVE ESCAPED IT (thankfully).

And that ought be be a liberating celebration.

Murad Ali Baig forwarded the following response to the interacters:


Thank you all for your 52 responses. I am thrilled. Some points do need to be clarified:

1. Rishi. Kartikeya may only be worshipped in the south and many Hindus in other regions worship many other local deities. Over the many centuries there has been a process of Brahmins enlarging their hold on the masses by gradually capturing the myths, deities and ceremonies and incorporation them in some part of their ample fold.

2. I feel the definition of Hindu as `a culture` or `a way of life` is just too facile. True, it has not become an inflexible and rigid dogma as in Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity or Islam but these too had been much more flexible until their monks and priests codified them over the years. Hinduism had been a free flowing religious tradition but as the Brahmins were the self-proclaimed keepers of all knowledge, they presided over the rites of birth, marriage and death and kept redefining the deities, philosophies and rituals for all who they considered Hindu.

3. Many Hindus remained Hindu even if they ignored the Brahmins and had their private deities and rituals. Tribals and untouchables were not considered Hindu and had their own traditions. Mostly animist or pagan ones including those of Ganesh and Hanuman though many of these were gradually incorporated in the evolving Hindu tradition. The Brahmins also sanctified myths of all sorts, including the ridiculous, into divine scripture and thus made many Hindus incredibly gullible and superstitious.

4. Unfortunately myths also glorified violent victories for their heroes and defeats and humiliation for their enemies. And, myths mushroomed in every faith. Krishnamurti says…``Faith invariably breeds violence…when I have faith in an idea or concept, I want to protect that idea…that idea is a projection of myself, I am identifierd with it…and when I defend something I must be violent.

5. Omar. Where did I say `high anointed priests in Islam`? I said there were ``usually`` five elements in all religions and I stand by my paras on priests and patrons. Islam, unfortunately, has had some of the most intolerant priests and many great places of worship were endowed by royal patrons in many countries. And they competed furiously with others when they did not have the umbrella of royal protection. I accept your point that it was not always so and should not have been so.

6. Concerning conversions I am interested to know more about voluntary conversions in Africa. Animists in all countries were easy converts. I don`t think there`s a `virtually universal opinion` about the voluntary nature of Islamic conversions. Certainly not in India where forcible conversions by Islam has a mythology of it`s own. Incidentally, Aurangzeb was not all that bad. He was also driven by the increasing orthodoxy of his times. Surprisingly, there are records to show that he endowed 36 temples at least including those at Benares, Someshwar, Mount Abu, Ujjain, etc. He, like most Mughal kings, was a practical and professional ruler till his last frustrating years.

7. Genuine respect for conquerors was also an element in conversions that few people realise. In recent times, many in British India took to Christianity because they believed that the British, their civilisation and religion was superior. The same must have also happened in periods when other religions ruled supreme and people began to forget their old ones.

8. The symbiotic relationship between the priests and rulers in every land worked to keep the masses obedient and docile. Brahmins had the longest unbroken period of religious dominance in any land. The oppressive caste system was their creation. One hymn of the Rigveda was to sanctify a more elaborate Manusmriti probably written between 227 and 320 AD but it was the commentary of Kulluka in the 7th century that was to make it so oppressive. It is significant that slavery, condoned by Islam, never took root in India. The chains of caste provided slaves for all chores without requiring any of the care and affection that slaves enjoyed.

9. The implacable divisions of the caste system that divided people into those who could give orders from those who were obliged to follow orders was probably a major reason for the arrogance and sloth among people in our land. The upper castes cocooned themselves in a world of pride, intrigue and sycophansy while the lower classes pretending obedience worked grudgingly in a sloppy, careless manner without any concern for time or precision.

10. Saima. Rogues and charlatans are found among many priests and self-proclaimed priests of every land. There have been far too many atrocities on real religious tradition, to say nothing about gullible people, by assorted Babas, Sants, Fakirs, Pirs, etc., using common conjuring tricks, promising miraculous boons and threatening dire curses or consequences. So much of common religion is just the quest for magic to get boons or avert misfortunes in this or the next life. The pilgrimages, offerings, penances, fasts and other deprivations may make the supplicant feel pure and good but they also enrich the priests how so ever they may be called. They ensure that superstition triumphs over spirituality and religiosity over religion.

11. It was such superstition that degraded and corrupted the simple animism of tribals and later went on to corrupt all other religions whose followers now wear amulets, talismans, lockets, etc., to protect them from Jinas, Djinns, spirits as well as the jealousies and curses of others. Protestantism was substantially a protest against the degrading of Catholocism where priests, living in great style, granted a place in heaven for those who undertook their penances or gave them lavish offerings.

12. RanaRansher. The dates of Vedic religion is highly debatable. The word Sanatan Dharma was a creation of Dayanand Saraswati in fairly recent times. If the Indo-European clans including the Aryans, Hittites, Mittani, Hyskos, Hurrians, Medes and others swarmed out of the Caspian area about 1730 BC, their language and religion are unlikely to go back so far. It is probable that the original inhabitants of India had earlier religious traditions that coalesced into Jainism and Buddhism that loaned many of their own concepts like reincarnation, ahimsa, dharma and karma that were quite alien to the Rigveda. I agree that only the revealed religions have clear cut definitions

13. Maliani. Sufis, Bhaktis, Vedantics, Gnostics, etc., were shunned and despised by the orthodox. Their simple personal pursuit of divine force without the trappings of rites, rituals or deities is, I think, most enlightening. The Vedantic `Aham Brahmasi` meaning that the divine spark is within ourselves is applicable to all. This is simple spirituality.

14. I claim no descent from Timur. My Pakistani cousin asked me recently why the Indian Baigs had dropped the Mirza and said that it was no decadent title but derived from Mirzada, meaning descendant of the Mir, who I, discovered, was Timur. No offence meant to anyone. And, I am proud to have descended from an African ancestor millions of years ago. I probably have Negrito, Proto Austroloid, Mongoloid and Caucasian blood in my veins like everyone else. If I was descended from the Mongols, who had once been the smelly horsemen of the steppes, and later the decadent Mughals, I will only take pride in what I can make of my ancestry.

I love you all for your animated participation.

Murad

re: Black Zero
Here are a few question to test your knowledge of the CASTE system in South Asia.
- Do you know why skin colour broadly equates with socio-ecnomic status within regions ?
- Do you know why there are so may different looking (colour and feature wise) people sometimes within the same families ?
- Have you heard of words like Bhangi, chamaar, churaa, etc. ?

You have barely scratched the surface. I tried explaining caste in my earlier posts.
Here is another shot. Popular theories of India talk of Dravidians (Tamil based languages Sudroid race www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1335/Anthro/sud_afr.html, Tamil is the oldest language) inhabiting it before Aryans came and Aryanised the land. THere are anthropoligical records, linguistiuc studies done to support this (plenty of material on the net if you are interested). The Aryans (Sanatan Dharm Sanskrit speaking) had their own society divided up into 3 uppers castes, while others (outsiders) fell into the 4th caste. When they came in contact with Sudroids there own system came to be called Varn (means colour in Sanskrit) and they took them as slaves (dasyus)
Over time there was a lot of intermixing. And as various interactors have pointed out throughout that the religion kept EVOLVING to INCLUDE everybody else. The texts some scholars refer to sanction the caste system are older than all the other texts that discard it and more importantly provide ways for Shudras to climb the social ladder and become `Aryans`. This is what some scholars call the Aryanisation or Aryan imperialism in India. So while earlier these people were enslaved as Dasyus, later, they were institutionally and religiously included. There are plenty of religious texts proving this and plenty of sects formed that abide by this and practice it.

Almost all scholars of revealed religions make this mistake. Hinduism is not based on ONE TEXT in ONE PARTICULAR TIMEFRAME. Afterall it was a name given by `outsiders` to the people living in this land who were very diverse. So to quote `outdated` material does not really do justice to studying Hinduism. Most people who discriminate on caste do so inadvertently and are not even aware of these texts, let alone read them !! In fact, modern day Hinduism has reached the other extreme, where people deny all this Aryan/Dravidian nonsense and say everybody is indigenous to India. That is nothing but a political ploy to put these issues to bed.

Has it gone away ? NO. Like I said earlier, it is inherently linked to what we practice in the form of feudalism, nepotism, culture, heritage and tradition. This includes Muslims of South Asia. Well the Indian Muslim example has been illustrated here already.
As far as Pakistanis are concerned even though the majority may have Arabic, Persian, Turkic names, society is by no means egalatarian. Sects retain a lot of their last names while still more sects are created with other names. Pakistan is very feudal (Maliks, Waderas, etc.) Waderas are Rajput chieftans. Bonded labour exists. Sectarian violence is everywhere. There are formal religious groups that indulge in Shia and Sunni violence. Surely this is not santioned or perpetrated by Islam. Understanding your past can only help explain your present and possibly help make a better future.
And what about the Bhangi Sardars who were routed by Maharaja Ranjit Singh from Lahore, much to the so-called Aryan populations delight. Sikhism, yet again, broke the shackles of caste, empowering the Bhangis (Sudroid), only to have Jat (Aryan) sikhs rout them.

FOrget Hinduism. I am not trying to sell you anything. But look around in Pakistan and see for yourself, has caste gone away ? You must have heard of the infamous Riffat Afridi and Kunwar Ahsan case. For Pakistanis I believe the PC words are TRIBES and FEUDALISM as opposed to caste, but you tell me, is there a difference ? THe only thing is the word caste (again given by Brits and not Indians) would imply Indian (Hindu) genes.

regards

Re: Omar1974 # 58

You have raised an interesting point.....

The insititution of slavery, as a historic concept, pre-dates both Christanity and Islam. Realistically speaking both Christianity and Islam, though against the idea in principle, allowed slavery to exist purely out of economic intrests. It was only in the last two hundred years that there was a moral objection to the idea of slavery and before that, slavery was never looked upon in a religious light, but merely as an annex to economic consideration.

Hence, to suggest or seek to unravel the truth behind who sanctioned the idea of slavery is an opaque realization itself, because the fact is that both exploited the insititution of slavery. Whether it was sanctioned or not is a moot point. A more valid point is why was it tolerated by all the said religions in question, despite their religious pretenses against its evil, and what were the mitigating factors which contributed to its offical legitimacy within the organizing principles of the religion, be it Christanity or Islam, itself?

re: RV, iconiclast
I completely see your points. I have some Pakistani friends who even claim that some Khatri, Jat, Rajput last names (which Hindus also have) are Arabic in origin.
Ludicrous is ludicrous is ludicrous. Whatever happened to genetics, anthropology and linguistics ?

re: Murad
RanaTunga is almost as good a batsman as me !! :-) Maybe you can explain why ?

re: all

A very apt discussion, given the title of this piece being ``Pagans and competitive conversions``.

And by no means is this a new debate. This debate has gone on for over 1000 years and yet we still find ourselves caught in the vice like grip of what I call the Muslim right (concept of Ummah) and Savarkars 19th century Hindutva (reconciliation of Aryan and Dravidian origins into one Hindutva). However, the one thing it keeps oscillating around is CASTE. THe aparthied of India. And it is all in the importance we give to our name. THe caste system absorbed everybody into it. Everybody, except the English. (One could argue that they got the highest caste of them all !!)

The problem is that while caste can be and is abused to oppress others and maintain ones position in the pecking order, it also forms an integral part of our culture and ethnic identity, which we all claim to be PROUD of. Today we practice the caste system in various mixtures of nepotism, feudalism, tradition, culture, heritage.
Time and time again social reforms and various religious/spiritual movements (Buddhism, Islam, Bhakti, Shaivism, Sufism, Sikhism, Arya Samaaj, and most importantly the Indian CONSTITUTION, etc.) have tried to eradicate the negative effects of it, yet, it keeps rearing its ugly head. Entire communities would change their last names in an effort to drop their CASTE, yet over time their adopted names themselves became their new caste.

Everybody in the world has a name. However, I rarely meet Europeans and North Americans who give a lot of importance to it. At least I don`t see them descriminating on the basis of it. One could argue that they have reconciled their ethnic identities along their present day national identities. But there is some special importance South Asians give to their last names. And it is because of this that CONVERSION is such a bad word. There is afterall a very fine line between being proud of ones ancestory and being fascist !

All this is a complete disgrace to the 1000 years of inter-marriages, the Sufi Bhakti legacy and is ludicrous when studied through the eyes of anthropology, genetics, linguistics, etc.

I remember a while ago when a college room mate of mine asked me my race and I said Indian. He then asked how Indians all looked so different (just like Arabs, South Americans, Jews) and I had some research to do !! The question came back to haunt me again and again on every application form.
But at the end of it all it didn`t really matter. As Faqar Zaman (eminent Pakistani Punjabi author) says, ``All my life I searched for my roots. I ended up at Mohen-jo-daro and Harappa. but what of it, what matters is what I am today. And a look in the mirror scares me !!``

Maybe I will change my chowk name to be Amar Akbar Anthony X :-). But we know that even changing names doesn`t really work. There was this freedom fighter called Udham Singh, who for the same reasons, became Ram Mohammed Singh Azad (Jalianwalla Bagh massacre, Dyer, O`Dwyer, Bhagat Singh). But I bet a lot of us have not even heard of this guy !!!!

re: RV, iconoclast, Truth
Some very valid points. I just feel you guys are not necessarily talking TO each other, you seem to be talking PAST each other. Truth, in particular, seems to be addressing the so-called right wingers who subscribe whole heartedly to Hindutva.

regards

RE RV:

Was slavery ever sanctioned by Christianity or Islam.

The short answer is that Islam encouraged the manumission of slaves (Hazrat Bilal was freed from slavery by the Prophet-pbuh). But Islam tolerated the continued existence of this evil. There are places where slavery still exists today.

Black slaves in Arabia not that long ago came from the horn of Africa. W.African slaves went to the Americas, the much older East African slave

trade run by the Arabs, continued well into this century in Arab `dhows.` (sailing ships)

Christianity was used by the Slave owning South in the U.S and through until the 1980s by the Racist pro-Apartheid Boers in South Africa to justify the `inherent inequality of man`.

Comments?

Re: ``Truth``

`` Murad`s statement of ``we can both claim descent from Timur I GUESS`` is as tentative and non-judgemental a statement as one can make. ``

-- C`mon , give me another line. Going by the same logic, Ram vilas paswan can be the descendant of Ram and Advani is the descendant of Krishna. Let alone mythological figures, every shivaji rao in Maharastra can be the descendant of Shivaji. I can go on and on, but if you refuse to give credence where it is due and want to first label everyone who felt the remark was undue as being dim-wits and subsequently tone down your rhetoric to reason out a baseless crass statement,,, i am not game for it..... go tell your story to someone else...

`` Where do you read fascism etc? The fact of the matter is that Muslim demographics of SOuth Asia stems from a mixture of immigration from West Asia plus indigenous conversions. ``

-- i know that more than you do (I guess),,, me being muslim. But claiming descent....that too merely on name makes it ridiculous.

``There are some rules of thumb that can one can apply. If you met a Malhotra in Madras, its a fair bet that he can trace back his heritage to Punjab. Similarly, a Bhattacharya in Bombay probably had his roots at some point in Bengal. ``

-- Another idiotic statement. The Malhotras and the Bhattacharyas are sects of people who intermarry among themselves and do not allow conversions into their respective sects... Islam is not such a sect or a religion. The Principles of Islam are based on universality and conversions towards the true and only god. And in this process,, to reduce these discriminations, people are encouraged to choose islamic names ...

`` I am no expert on Muslim family names but it is possible that there is some rule of thumb for certain last names. Why dont you find out about it before passing judgement on Murad? ``

-- When you are not an expert,,, the least you can do is shut up and not label others who know a little bit as dim-wits.... Get that DW.

--Murad is his first name here, not his family name. Baig is his family name,,, which is also a Hindu family name in northern india.

-- I am not going to reply to your mails in this section anymore.. so save yourself some trouble in not replying to this one...

--A word of advice... get down from your intellectual high plane when you start labelling others as dim-wits ... .I am sorry to say that Your wit stands exposed in your reply.

Iconoclast

Black Zero wrote

``For access to public roads and even for spaces to BURY the dead, they have to depend much on the capricious benevolence of their caste-Hindu neighbors``

``BURY`` the dead??? Since when Hindus started burying their dead??

Though most of the stuff Black Zero has written is true OR to be precise it WAS true. Not any more. Maybe Zero should visit India now. He will find things have changed radically. Fruits of democracy are ripening. In most of the states and even at the central government level it`s the Dalits and Backwards who hold the power. Massacre at Bihar, where Dalits managed to kill more non-dalits`` (probably for the first time) shows which way the wind is blowing.

To equate religion with society is nonsensical. Was slavery ever sanctioned by Christianity or Islam. But even till 19th century slavery existed in Christian USA. Will it be correct to castigate the Christian religion as the cause of slavery.

Truth wrote

``To all the dim-witted Indians getting agitated by the reference to Timur:...``

How typical is the response from Truth. His ``boukhlahat`` at the questioning of the origin of Muslims in Indian subcontinent would be amusing had it not been so pathetic. His response is somewhat I have gotten used to and it doesn`t help a bit in enlightening this ``dim-wit``.

Truth says…

``Murad never said he was proud of it. Its just a point he was making from his name. ``

That`s absolutely right that Murad never said he was proud of it but it is clear to even a ``dim-wit`` that he sounds proud of his Timurish descent. The fact that Mirza sahib dropped his ``Timur descent`` totally out of context further corroborates the pride theory. If the discussion were on genealogy, history of India or famous people of central Asia, I would have understood the ``name-dropping``. But we were having discussion about religions, pagans, sufism… I fail to see what point one may want to make by bringing ``Timur`` in this context.

My Muslim friends and acquaintances range from Pakistan to southern India. One curious thing that keeps propping up in our conversation is the origin of Muslims in India. And the reason it keeps propping up is not because generally we are trying to unearth this ``secret`` but because of the ``name-dropping`` habit of these friends. We may be discussing future of Euro and its impact on US dollar, and suddenly one such gentleman will remind us of direct descent from Babar in an attempt to strengthen his argument. Not to be outdone by this claim another gentleman will quickly point to his Timurish legacy. And by now the digression would be complete. It is quite possible that a third gentleman may try to outsmart all other a spinning a totally ``bs`` story… A ``real-life`` example follows:

``You know sometime back we got an old well in the backyard of our ancestrol Lahore house cleaned up. In that cleaning process one laborer brought out a brick like rock with some kind of Arabic engraving on it. We got it cleaned and had it analyzed by an Arabic expert. The expert told us that it had the name of an Arabian clan leader.`` And then this fellow will continue to claim his Arab ancestry with a ``proof``. Not like the others without a proof.

A south Indian Muslim friend whose name has word ``Syed`` in it has repeatedly told me that he is a direct descendent of Prophet Muhammad family. Another friend with the last name of Siddiqui keeps harping about his Arabian blood. If in US, I had not had a chance to see Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Indians and Pakistani`s face-to-face and observed their facial features, I might have accepted that. But in view of conflicting physical evidence, it takes an effort to keep a straight face.

Another curious aspect of this picture is that in private, each of them try to undermine the claim of other guys ancestry while legitimizing his own claim.

I must say that Bangladeshi Muslim do not indulge in this ``name-dropping`` farce to that extent. They come out pretty proud of their Bangla culture and values.

Truth writes…

``Not every Muslim of India is a convert. For your info, as per historical records, three quarters of Akbar`s civil sevice was foreign-born. ``

By no means I am trying to say that ``every`` Muslim of India is a convert. There are people who might have no ancestry in Hindu India. Probably more so in Pakistan than India. And its quite possible that one person from that venerated civil service of Akbar has managed to retain his racial purity. But then he may be the only one. An exception… and exceptions do not define the countries and nations.

I understand that these claims to distinct ancestry are critical to the Pakistanis in particular. Without which the two-nation theory doesn`t look too viable. And that is the reason why the history books in Pakistan were re-written (by fiction writers and not historians). The fear of ``Akhand Bharat`` forces Pakistani Muslims to keep reveling in imaginary lineage. But for an Indian Muslim like Mirza Murad Ali Baig , this kind of name dropping is simply an expression of caste-system or elitism.

I can`t agree more with ``iconoclast`` statement

``So you are a descendant of Timur... and I am a descendant of a poor Hindu laborer . So what, who gives a damn ? ``

The elitist attitude may have a sanction in Hinduism, but Islam characteristically differs in that respect. Even the greatest detractor of Islam are impressed by its emphasis on ``equality of all``. Its really saddening when scholarly ``sounding`` people like Murad jump to any opportunity to offer their ``kadambosi`` of Timurs. One expects better from them.

After 50 years of partition people in both country have reconciled to two-country (if not two-nation) theory. Maybe its time Pakistanis Muslims accept the truth and Indian Muslims (the likes of Mirza Murad Ali Baig) stop acting ``better-than-you``.

I have never seen a black Afro-American, who may be having more German blood than African, (more German blood than a Pakistani can ever have from Changez Khan) claiming his descent from Hitler .

Folks …You are what you are. What you do in your life determines your identity. What your parent or their parents did has very little meaning, especially, in this age of information. Falling to the temptation of using the crutches of ``names`` to make one look bigger than one is, only makes one look smaller.

Peace…

a dim wit… maybe, but proud of what he is…and who doesn`t need the fancy names like ``Truth`` to embellish his words.

I posted a different question on `Ashamed of India` article but here`s the same post with a different question:

If Hinduism is such a good and inclusive religion, how can it tolerate, rather perpetuate, such a horrible system that considers every low-caste Hindu and all non-Hindus as untouchables and worse than animals?

CBS had a great piece on the victims of the caste system in India. Here`s what they say on the intro on their website: http://www.cbs.com/prd1/now/display?p_who=network&p_section=3400

The Untouchables

India may be the world’s largest democracy but it’s anything but that to the 200 million people there called ``untouchables,`` people so shunned that the upper classes literally won’t touch them or even share the same water source with them. Christiane Amanpour reports. Andrew Tkach is the producer.

More info on the untouchables in India:

The so-called Dalits (Untouchables) are the most pitiable victims of the obnoxious and pernicious caste system. Manu has little to say about them. He affirms that the members of three castes, the Brahman (white Aryan), the Kshatriya, and the Vashya, are twice-born; the fourth, the Sudra, once-born; there is no fifth.` All others are outcastes. The common name Dasyas (slaves) is applied to them all.[ 1 ]

The treatment accorded to the Dalit is simply inhuman. According to Manu Smriti, `Outcasted persons have no share in inheritance.`[ 2 ] The orthodox Brahmans still believe, if the shadow of a Dalit falls on them, they are polluted and will have to purify them by sprinkling over themse1ves water from the holy river, the Ganges [ 3 ]. `You may breed cows and dogs in your house,` wrote Mr. M.C. Raja. `You may drink the urine of cows and swallow cowdung to expiate your sins, but you shall not approach an Adi Dravida [ 4 ]. These people are still denied the use of public wells and tanks and at the same time stigmatized as unclean. They are still kept out of schools and colleges maintained by public funds and at the same time despised as ignorant and illiterate. They are still Shut out from temples, and yet branded as ungodly and unfit to associate with. For access to public roads and even for spaces to bury the dead, they have to depend much on the capricious benevolence of their caste-Hindu neighbours.[ 5]

References

[1] Wilkins: Modern Hinduism, London: 1975, p. 263.

[2] John C. Oman, The Brahmans, Theists, and Muslims of India, Delhi, 1973, p. 47.

[3] F.M. Sandeela, Islam, Christianity and Hinduism, Delhi, 1990, pp. 69-70.

[4] i.e., original Indians: Dalits, Sudras, tribal people.

[5] Swami Dharma Theertha, History of Hindu Imperialism, (Madras: 1992), pp. 184-85, quoted from P. Chidambaram Pillai`s Right of Temple Entry, p. 150.