An Eulogy For The Hawks

``...Indian Punjab, and isn`t there a district even there which still has a mixed population of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims? I can`t remember the name, but it used to be a Princely State (not Kapurthala, another one.)...``

Malerkotla -- from where Mansur Ali Khan, the Nawab of Pataudi (and India`s youngest ever cricket captain) hails from. There are also nearly 4000 Punjabi muslims who live in Delhi today (http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/100501/detCIT15.asp)

``...I don`t think that India has entirely lost the muslim component of its culture, however. It still exists - it was diminished, but is recovering...``

I recently read a book called the City of Djinns: A Year in Delhi by William Dalrymple, who has chronicled the major disasters that have befallen Delhi in its history (in reverse order). He starts with the anti-Sikh riots of 1984, and goes on to talk about the partition of 1947, and the exodus of the Muslim upper/middle classes from Delhi, and how different Delhi used to be then. The tantalizing fragments that remain give signs of hope, and also a deep sense of loss. From the book, I learned that there is a Prof. Yunus Jaffrey, professor of Persian in Zakir Hussain College in Ajmeri Gate, Delhi whose talents were called upon by the Smithsonian Institution to translate ShahJahan`s Badshanamah (now in the royal collection of England`s Queen). Prof. Yunus is one of the few scholars who can translate old Persian. There is another author (last name Ali) who wrote a book describing Delhi in the 1940s (Twilight in Delhi, published 1941) which I have been so far unable to obtain, who now lives in Karachi. I recently heard Musharraf`s Delhi-born octagenerian mother speak in flawless english on TV. These isolated examples provide artefacts of a well-developed culture that suffered from a scattering of its talent in 1947, and India`s loss.

Zafar al Talib

# 208

Maler Kotla

Reply Shammi #204

Many thanks for the compliment. Yes - I grew up in a refugee neighbourhood in Delhi, and I agree with your point that Partition was a defining process for evacuees (and remains one for their children).

I don`t think that India has entirely lost the muslim component of its culture, however. It still exists - it was diminished, but is recovering (despite setbacks such as BM/RJB riots, etc.). The only portion of India which seems to have lost its muslim cultural component is Indian Punjab, and isn`t there a district even there which still has a mixed population of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims? I can`t remember the name, but it used to be a Princely State (not Kapurthala, another one.)

Re: Pankaj

``Are you from IITD``

Yes.

Shammi

Are you from IITD.

Just curious.

Re: Romairr #154

``So my (or the average Pakistani Muslim`s) chances of entering, much less making it to the top of the military, civil services or IT circles would have been next to nill, had I been an Indian Muslim...``

Obtaining an admission to a CS course, much less a degree in CS from IIT is by far a statistical long-shot. My class in IIT had numerous Muslims, including some in CS. One was a daughter of Syed Shahbuddin, a politically active and prominent anti-Hindutva politician. I would think that she would probably disagree with you. The entrace exams for military, civil services and professional colleges require candidates to anonymize their names (probably the same as in Pakistan). Where, then, does the question of religion enter in a merit-based selection?

Re: Zafar Al-Talib

You write well, sir. I can also attest to the fact that alongwith the stress imposed by the Partition on Indian Muslims (much of it misplaced) and those who migrated, enormous stress was placed on the evaucees from Pakistan which saw its minority population reduced from 25% to nearly 1.5% today. Further, the economic deprivation caused by the flight of the Muslim middle class from N. India leaving an entire impoverished community leaderless, the division of the Subcontinents Muslims into 3 equal parts, thus diluting their voice, are also costs that need to be factored in. Perhaps, one day, both countries will come to realize the loss of their minorities, and their forgotten cultures.

Reply Romair #145

Romair

Sorry for not being clear about it. I am Indian.

I agree with your fundamental premise (if I’ve understood it correctly) that discrimination against minority groups in any union is wrong. There are two approaches to solving this problem: secession from this union by a minority group, making it a majority in it “own” smaller union, or ensuring that minorities are not discriminated against in the union.

The first premise is what resulted in Partition and the formation of India and Pakistan (later also Bangladesh) as we know them. The problem with this kind of solution is that it is geographically messy (there are very very few religiously, linguistically and culturally homogenous areas in the subcontinent, or in fact anywhere), and the solution always results in the creation of new minority groups in the new (smaller) unions. That is why I feel that further subdivision of the subcontinent on ethnic/religious/linguistic grounds is not a good idea. All it would do is create new majorities and minorities, and the potential for new theatres for discrimination, because it does not substantively address the core issue: majorities (whoever they are) have a tendency to discriminate against minorities (whomever they are).

This is why there is a growing realisation that civilised democracies have to both (1) uphold each individual citizens’ right to equality and (2) uphold minority interests as well, ensuring that the views of all sections of a society (not just the majority) are reflected in national polity. It is a balancing act, and I admit a little bit counterintuitive.

I do not mean in any way to criticise your family’s choice to move to Pakistan, and you may be right that Partition resulted in greater opportunities for you personally. As some of the other people responding to both of our responses have pointed out, however, it is very difficult to say this with certainty. (Eklavya #?) Partition didn’t just affect subcontinental Muslims by giving them a country in which they were the majority. It also resulted in a country, India, where Muslims were an 11% (?) minority, were identified in some aspects of popular culture with the movement which “split” India, were a community with a decimated middle class due to immigration to Pakistan (this last is changing, albeit slowly), and were also identified to some extent with the “enemy”, especially during the Indo-Pakistan wars.

Of course the success or failure of Partition depends on whom you ask, what their background is, and which side of the border(s) they found themselves in its aftermath. My point is that if Partition’s objective was to improve the lot of all subcontinental Muslims, you’d have to evaluate it in the light of at least one third of these Muslims (the ones in India) having their lives (to this day) negatively affected by it. (For an example close to home I draw your attention to a certain person who regularly contributes to discussions on Chowk, and who shall remain nameless, who IMHO, has been deeply stressed by the results of Partition on Muslims in India.)

I’m not saying that Partition can, or even should, be undone. Our different countries exist today. We love them. All I’m saying is that Partition does not solve all the problems associated with minorities in heterogeneous societies, and may even create some. It doesn’t get rid of diversity. (See Narain’s comment #148 – he puts it really well.) So we should think carefully before advocating Partitions based on whatever differences there are between different people. As I’ve said above, I think that there is a better way to go, one which is fairer, more long lasting and certainly less violent in its implementation and outcomes.

I empathise with your point of view, and hope that you can now see mine as well.

Ref: Tahmed321 #144

Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant! It cries out for Bollywood dialogue. Please please continue…

Re: Hobbyty

I think that the difference between a threat and actually carrying it out is only of degree, and of operational `efficiency`. Morally, they are both equally repugnant.

All that i asked for was a condemnation of the death threats against the cricketers, which you have still not done.

What `bait and switch` game are you referring to? I have put all my postitions on the table.

Shammi

You are being less than honest when you say I have condoned a crime. Equating the making of threats to real rapes and murders is something you are doing.

My point was that a threat, is just a threat. Equating it to real rape and real murder is obscene.

You are getting proficient at the ``bait and switch`` game. Careful, you can`t hide that kind of thing. Your game is transparent.

Re: Hobbyty #198

``will you or other Indians of honour not join in the vocalizing your condemnation of real, not threatened, rapes and murders of Kahmiris?``

Of course, I will. Why would you think otherwise? I think that we have had a similar discussion on partition murders, where Tahmed321 showed you the light, as he did again this time. Why are you regressing back to your original position of `two wrongs make a right`? Why does your moral compass drift? Since when is killing a cricketer justified on the basis of a rape elsewhere?

BTW, the law DOES sometimes take its course when rape convictions come to light:

``... there is reason still to welcome the sentencing of (Indian Army) Captain Ravinder Singh Tewatia to seven years rigorous imprisonment and his dismissal from service after a court martial. Tewatia was found guilty of raping a 17 year-old girl and her mother in Nawgam in Banihal tehsil, Jammu...``

http://www.indian-express.com/ie/daily/20001006/ied06031.html

Committing a crime, and condoning it are two different things. You, Hobbyty, have just condoned one.

anNy #183 I see my name mentioned at the end of the post with regrets being offered for anything wrong you may have said in the post. Please feel free to write what you wish about these people: As I mentioned earlier, I am convinced there is a reason God put these hate mongerers on Chowk: this is to enable one to be mean to them without feeling guilty (and you were not being mean in your post anyway, just letting off steam). Some people are incapable of being mean to anyone, even to the most deserving cases, and I think you are one of them, and that is why you feel guilty. But anyone who has hatreds so deeply ingrained against Pakistanis or Indians or Muslims or Hindus (depending on where the idiot was born - oops, I just got mean again) as some of the folks you mention do not deserve any consideration or respect.

Shammi

Threats are just that threats - will you or other Indians of honour not join in the vocalizing your condemnation of real, not threatened, rapes and murders of Kahmiris? You don`t have to condone or condemn Mujahids, but will you not condemn the rapes of Kashimiri girls at the hands of security forces? And will you not condemn and put an end to the killings of Kashmiri youth in extrajudicial and custodial killings? Will you not condemn the use of torture by Indian forces against suspected Mujahids?

Romair # 195

But Romair, that is NOT a fair comparison to make, for it tells nothing other than the probable fact that the majority has it better than the minority; and if you apply even a bit of statistical reasoning, not even that much.

So, aren`t any conclusions based on this comparison likely to be false and merely self-serving? We would be comparing apples and oranges. What do you think?

From Pakistani newspapers, it seems the chance of an elected Indian Muslim being the Home minister of India has been much higher than the chances of a elected Pakistani Muslim becoming the Interior Affairs minister of Pakistan.

And lets not even talk of the chances for elected Muslims to become ministers in Indian states vs chances for elected Muslims to become ministers in Pakistani provinces.

SameerJB #185: ``There is a fatal errot in this argument. Pakistani Muslims can not extrapolate their conditions based on the conditions of Muslims in India today.``

This is correct. It is impossible to predict the exact situation on pure theoretical scenarios. However, the closest extrapolation one can make is on the facts that are currently available. My argument is based on the current situation, i.e if I were to migrate to India right now, or if I had been born in India.

Had Pakistan not separated, the position of the Muslims could have been much better in India. Then again, it could have been much worse. Or it could have been the same. One can only predict and guess.

What is a fact however, at least according to the various statistics presented by Indian Muslim newspapers, is that the condition of Muslims in Pakistan is better than the condition of Muslims in India. And this direct comparison is really the only comparison one can make (though it has faults), since all other comparisons are, as you have stated, completely theoretical. That was the basis of my argument.