The Mahatma’s Progeny

Romair,



You read Hamza Alavi don`t you? Or do you think you know more than him too... Read his CONCLUSION and understand what I have been harping about:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/sangat/Pakislam.htm

``There could be no clearer statement of the secular principle as the basis of Pakistan. The true heirs in today`s Pakistan of what the Pakistan ideology really was, are the secularists. They include practising Muslims, who, nevertheless, reject and repudiate the idea of exploitation of Islamic ideology in pursuit of political ends.``



My reply to your rather sad and uneducated `Mullah` Inspired question:

Sadly, you are so full of yourself that you never bothered to read my posts, which was evident in your contant diatribe here and on another board where you accused me of hating you because you don`t like the Turks.

PREMISE: Secularism is a Principle, not an ideology. Secularism is the Principle of equality of a state`s citizens, and principle of Impartiality by the state.

WHERE in the UNITED STATES`s constitution DOES it say that US is a `SECULAR` state? Does that mean US isn`t... hold that thought, I`ll come back to that one later.

I am rather saddened by your one track Military mentality which has made you incapable of any productive understanding of what I have been trying to say all that time. Frankly you don`t understand the meaning of secularism.

For example You also said once `Jinnah was secular` but he didn`t want to impose his `secularism` on the people. Hello? What is that statement supposed to mean? That Jinnah was irreligious? He might have BEEN ... that is NOT `secular`. Jinnah was SECULAR only because of his `impartial` conduct as the Governor General of Pakistan. Ataturk was SECULAR not because he banned the FEZ or he made Turks like Europeans...he was secular because he DISESTABLISHED Islam from the Governance, not because he disestablished Islam from the society.

I must once again contend that you are trying to provoke me on purpose. I have replied to your stupid assertion about Jinnah many times but you are acting like a stupid mullah again and again.

1) SECULARISM DOESNOT MEAN IRRELIGIOUSITY! It is NOT `secularism` vs `Religionism`. Secularism is Impartiality TO religionism.

Secularism as THE term is Understood in POLITICAL SCIENCE means `State`s impartiality` towards Religion. Now don`t go around quoting Dictionary.com like a little boy, because had you taken one political Science class at college you would understand how stupid you sound with your continuous nonsense.

Like the Ignorant Mullahs, you are confusing Secular Humanism/Atheism, with the concept of `SECULARISM`, two totally different things.

2) WHERE in the UNITED STATES`s constitution DOES it say that US is a `SECULAR` state?

NO WHERE. Does that Mean the United States is Not secular? No it doesn`t. Why? Because `SECULARISM` is not the name of an Ideology, but a Principle.

Secularism is NOT the opposite of `Religion`. The active definition of SECULARISM is : Every one should have equal rights. Religion should be kept out of the state and its affairs.

Now did or Did Jinnah not say:

1) Pakistan shall not be a Theocracy!

2) In Pakistan Sovereignty belongs to the people.

3) Pakistan shall not be run by priests with a divine mission?

4) In Pakistan everyone shall have Equal rights regardless of religion caste or creed.

ASK ANYONE: THE ABOVE MENTIONED IS `SECULARISM` WHETHER YOU WISH TO CALL IT ISLAM, HINDUISM, OR COW FAITH... I DON`T CARE... BUT THE PRINCIPLE OF STATE IMPARTIALITY AND EQUAL RIGHTS REGARDLESS OF RELIGION CASTE OR CREED IS `SECULAR` ... SO IS SUCH A STATE ISLAMIC AS WELL ? I THINK SO... BUT MANY MULLAHS DON`T.

Pakistanis like you are ignorant people, who show their stupidity by declaring time and again, that `Jinnah wanted everyone to have equal rights and wanted to keep priests out of the state affairs, and he wanted a non theocratic state but he didn`t want a secular state but an Islamic state`... if that was indeed the case and if Jinnah was right, then an `Islamic` state is a secular state or else it is not Islamic.

The Bottom line is that if Islam endorses the idea of Complete equality and impartiality, then Islam as a faith cannot support the stupid notions of a theocratic state, and hence can ONLY support a `Secular` state.

So if you support

1) Equal Rights for Everyone.

2) Non-theocratic Democratic Governance

You are `secular` whether you call yourself SECULAR or not. So now don`t be a CHILD and ask for the stupid and idiotic questions that you have been asking me about Jinnah speeches...

It is on the record that Jinnah had on numerous occasions in Private said clearly that he wanted Pakistan to be a SECULAR state not an Islamic state. Read Raja of Mahmudabad`s arguments sometime.



In any event, I doubt that you wanna learn. I am sure it is very hard for you to admit that you are an imbecile who doesn`t have a cogent argument and who keeps accusing people unnecessarily.

-YLH

anNy,

I am coming to Pakistan in a few months. Please contact me... I think we should form a Pressure group of sorts along the lines that you have mentioned to rid Pakistan of this menace of Bigotry.

How about that?

-YLH

Tvarad #

There are many perceptions of this demonic issue of Hinduisation being forcefully sold as indianisation.At one end many hindus agree that Gujrat was not run of the mill clash of two sensitive communities but in reality Genocide/ethnic cleansing.To dismiss it just as you do ,as REACTION /retaliation TO GODHRA ,s to be insensitive & callous to what ppl. like Farzana feel.Yes day one i felt content with that explanation but not after a month & hundred reports of incidents in which meticulous operation backed by FEEDBACK from govt agencies such as municipalities ,Electric boards,atin Cards,electoral lists ,cable subscription lists,computer printouts of govt datas were used to elevate a apparent retaliation cover to level of mechanised engineering feat.

Is India going the way of 1930s Germany?



By Arun R Swamy

(With permission from Foreign Policy in Focus http://www.fpif.org)

The recent rounds of violence between religious groups in India do more than reveal the fragility of India`s secular state. They highlight the inability of Indian democracy to combat what is essentially a fascist onslaught.

At first glance what is happening in India appears to be another - if extreme - case of religious passion gone awry. A train carrying Hindu activists from the disputed religious site of Ayodhya was firebombed by a mob, killing 58 of the activists. Several days of revenge attacks by Hindus against Muslims followed in the state of Gujarat, killing more than 700.

However, India`s Hindu nationalists have always resembled 1930s European fascists more than they do contemporary ``fundamentalists``. Members of the core organization of Hindu nationalism, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), founded in the 1920s, are given paramilitary instruction, not religious, and wear khaki uniforms reminiscent of Mussolini`s brownshirts. While the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), founded in the 1960s, is mainly concerned with religion, it still does not prescribe how Hindus should worship or behave - an impossible task given the diversity of Hindu religious practice.

Instead, like all Hindu nationalists, it is bent on characterizing Muslims as alien and hostile while seeking to unify Hindus around a romantic nationalism, in which military prowess plays a central role. Hindu nationalists` emphasis on international prestige has won them the support of the Westernized middle class, typically the target of Islamic fundamentalism. Their focus on demonizing Muslims rather than promoting Hinduism is illustrated even by the dispute over Ayodhya, where extremist Hindu groups destroyed a 16th-century Muslim mosque in 1992, sparking nationwide sectarian riots in which more than 2,000 people died.

Hindu nationalists claim that a temple on the same site honoring the birthplace of the Hindu deity, Rama, was torn down to make way for the mosque. For Hindu extremist groups, the claim that a temple was torn down to build a mosque - for which there is no concrete evidence - was at least as important as the claim that Rama was born at the site. The destruction of the mosque was commonly spoken of in terms of retaking territory that had been lost to invaders.

Hindu nationalists have identified other mosques that they wish to destroy, claiming that these, too, were built on temple sites. For none do they claim the sanctity associated with the birthplace of Rama. Indeed, the purpose of claiming a particular site as Rama`s birthplace - for which there is no basis in theology or tradition - was to justify tearing down the existing mosque.

It is this fascist ideology, and the fact that a party espousing it is at the head of the national government, that makes the recent anti-Muslim pogroms in Gujarat so much more disturbing than earlier rounds of riots. As horrific as the recent violence was, more died in 1992. But the political establishment`s response this time has been ambivalent and feeble. The paralysis in the political system is emboldening the Hindu extremist organizations responsible for the Gujarat ``riots`` to press their agenda more forcefully. There are times when India seems to resemble Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s.

The analogy to the rise of Hitler is not one that should be made lightly, but there are many parallels. The Gujarat attacks were not spontaneous expressions of mob rage but were highly organized and brutally efficient, probably identifying Muslim homes and businesses through the use of public records. The state government was almost certainly complicit in the wave of violence that affected the entire state and saw no effort by the police to control it. The central government was slow to dispatch the army, and has attempted to put the focus on the train attack, for which they blame Pakistani intelligence.

The state government initially sought to limit judicial inquiry to investigating the train attack, to use its emergency powers only against those accused of the train attack, and to offer higher levels of compensation to the (Hindu) victims of the train attack on the grounds that they were victims of terrorism. Even many liberal intellectuals and politicians, whose protests forced the state government to retract some of these measures, have tacitly accepted the idea that several days of targeted anti-Muslim violence can be equated with the attack on the train, and even resulted from it.

Worse, there has been no effort by those in power to hold those responsible for the Gujarat attacks accountable. The national government, run by the same party as the state government, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has chosen not to use its constitutional authority to take over the state`s administration despite having attempted last year to do so on law and order grounds in another, opposition-ruled state. Although the government has banned militant Islamic groups, it has ignored calls by parties both in the opposition and in its own coalition to do this to Hindu extremist organizations. The involvement of these organizations in the Gujarat violence is widely attested to, and they were banned after they tore down the Ayodhya mosque in 1992.

Worse still, even after the Gujarat riots the government negotiated with the VHP over its plans to begin construction of a temple on the disputed site. The compromise involved an official in the Prime Minister`s Office accepting possession of two pillars intended for inclusion in the temple structure. Even though this seriously compromised the Indian state`s claims to religious neutrality, the government has congratulated itself for defusing a potentially explosive situation.

To be sure, the government is in a tight spot. BJP members of parliament have expressed outrage at the government`s refusal to let temple construction proceed until the Supreme Court rules on the subject. However, statements and actions by Hindu extremist organizations since suggest that they have been emboldened by the concessions the government has made. Over the weekend of March 15, members of several right-wing Hindu organizations stormed and sacked the legislative assembly of the state of Orissa for unknown reasons, while the RSS warned Indian Muslims that their safety depended on the goodwill of the Hindu majority. The next week the VHP indicated that it had plans to carry the ashes of the train attack victims in processions throughout the country - an act calculated to incite mob fury. It later disavowed its plans when many of the BJP`s coalition allies threatened to pull out of the coalition if the plans were carried through.

The opposition parties and some of the BJP`s coalition allies have succeeded in checking the VHP to some degree. They have called for Hindu extremist organizations to be banned, and condemned the compromise with the VHP over the performance of the temple ceremony, as well as the attack on the Orissa assembly and the RSS` statement on Muslims. In addition to blocking the alleged plans to carry the ashes of Hindus killed in the train attack in a procession many have threatened to withdraw their support if the Ayodhya temple is built. The BJP leadership has promised to abide by the Supreme Court`s ruling on the temple site. However, the VHP can undertake many provocative acts short of actually constructing the temple and has announced plans for more religious ceremonies centering on the temple issue around the country. There is a limit to how many battles the allies can fight and win from within the government.

The BJP`s allies have been reluctant to withdraw from the government and indeed voted with the government in passing a Prevention of Terrorism Bill that will significantly weaken protections for civil liberties including allowing confessions extorted from prisoners by police to be admitted as evidence. The act, the provisions of which are currently in operation as an executive order, was defeated in the Upper House of parliament where the opposition parties are in a majority, but it then passed in an unusual joint session of parliament. During the acrimonious debate, two former prime ministers charged that the existing ordinance was used selectively against Muslims in Gujarat, while the current leader of the opposition, Sonia Gandhi, argued that the law would be used by the national government to intimidate its opponents and divide the country.

Short-term political calculations keep the government in power. Most of the BJP`s allies are regional parties. The opposition Congress Party, which has won a string of recent elections, is their local rival. Similar divisions between the Congress and other opposition parties have also hindered efforts to form an alternate coalition. Indeed, some opposition parties are gravitating toward the government out of tactical considerations even as some of its allies pull away from it. Meanwhile, the two communist parties, outwardly the most opposed to the BJP, have announced that they would refuse to support a Congress government because of differences with that party`s economic policy.

This combination of organized thugs affiliated with the ruling party who terrorize a minority community and intimidate a silent majority, with a divided opposition in which the center is getting squeezed from both sides, is only the most obvious parallel to Germany in the early 1930s. Over the past few years, the BJP has tried to reshape the secondary-school curriculum by stealth in ways that fit with Hindu nationalist ideology and has presided over the slow militarization of the polity. By casting the Pakistan-supported insurgency in Kashmir as a crisis of national security, military expenditures have been increased while social welfare expenses have been cut. The command structure of the armed forces, which were kept divided for decades to ensure civilian control, has been unified in recent years. With the passage of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, the government will have most of the tools it requires to gradually reduce the space for dissent.

There are many factors that could prevent this from happening. The Supreme Court has blocked both the VHP`s plans for Ayodhya and the release of new textbooks following the social-studies curricula. The National Human Rights Commission, which in India has some judicial powers, has rejected the Gujarat government`s initial report on the riots as ``perfunctory`` and demanded a more thorough accounting. With the opposition parties controlling the presidency, Upper House of parliament, most state governments, and therefore the electoral college for electing the next president this summer, it would be difficult for the BJP to significantly alter the constitutional balance or to declare a state of national emergency. Moreover, the government has a stake in preserving India`s credentials as a secular state, in order to maintain US pressure on neighboring Pakistan to crack down on militant Islamic groups and in order to develop economic ties with Islamic countries like Iran. Continued provocations by Hindu extremist organizations could yet force a rift between the BJP and its allies or even within the BJP, which is divided over the temple issue.

However, the difficulty India`s mainstream parties have had in maintaining a united opposition to the BJP`s agenda, and the change in the international attitude toward civil liberties since September 11, make it difficult to feel confident that Hindu fascism will be defeated. For this to happen, both centrist parties in the ruling coalition, and India`s friends abroad, will need to recognize that what happened in Gujarat was not just another instance of religious communities in conflict. Rather, as Indian opposition leaders have charged, it was part of a broader tendency toward eliminating civil liberties and scapegoating cultural minorities in an aggressive effort to impose a unified sense of nationhood on one of the world`s most culturally diverse societies.

Arun R Swamy is a fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.

(This article was first published in Foreign Policy in Focus, http://www.fpif.org and is republished with permission.)

PS to Romair, Incase I missed it before this is the link to Alavi`s Paper:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/sangat/Pakislam.htm

``There could be no clearer statement of the secular principle as the basis of Pakistan. The true heirs in today`s Pakistan of what the Pakistan ideology really was, are the secularists. They include practising Muslims, who, nevertheless, reject and repudiate the idea of exploitation of Islamic ideology in pursuit of political ends``

This is the statement. It is towards the End.

Romair Cowasjee wrote this aboput you:

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20020203.htm

read the whole thing.

A major thesis of this article - that Gandhi was a spiritual progenitor of Hindutva - is difficult to take seriously.

It is impossible to use religious identity as a positive force in public life. Experience has shown that people at large use sectarian religious identities as tribal or herd markers - while ignoring whatever religion might have to say about achieving inner serenity or social equity - and thus fall prey to unscrupulous political manipulators. Gandhi was one of the few people who tried , and for a while actually succeeded, in turning religiosity - as opposed to a particular religious faith - to benevolent and non-divisive ends. He was just as concerned with individual self-mastery and social reform as with achieving swaraj (and in truth, India and Indians needed and still need the first two as much as the third). His public meetings commonly had the flavour of interfaith prayer meetings. He dealt easily with people of various faiths - or no faith at all, like Nehru; his posture towards them was not patronising in the least. One cannot conceive of him demanding that non-Hindus `prove` their allegiance towards India - something that the Hindutva brigades have the nerve to do. He was the antithesis of a sectarian bigot.

As to his attitude to Muslims, Gandhi had read the Koran, and found in it a great deal with which he approved. He never wanted Muslims to be anything less than full and equal citizens in India. His opposition to the self-serving demands of some communal Muslim politicians does not translate to hostility to Muslims at large, any more than his opposition to Hindu communalists equates to hatred of Hindus.

It is easy to take a single isolated quote out of context to paint Gandhi as prejudiced towards Muslims. The whole point of the 1924 remark about bullies and cowards is lost - namely, that Gandhi wanted people to be neither, whatever their faith; that he preferred violent resistance to cowardice in the face of bullying. Given the extent to which he wrote down his thoughts and the degree to which his life was lived in the public eye, those who wish to make a specious point against him can find much more that apparently damns the man. Very early in his career - as an advocate for the Indian community in South Africa - he is found repeatedly complaining, in letters and public speeches, that the colonial government sought to bring down Indians to the level of `black kaffirs`. But he grew in wisdom and stature all his life and would surely have known better later on.

As to his fasts, the point is that the man never went on fast in support of ignoble and purely partisan causes, and that is why he was taken seriously. To latterday saints like Acharya Ramchandra Paramhans and Ashok Singhal threatening to go on indefinite hunger-strike or actually give up the ghost, I say, let them. They seem quite well-fed to begin with. A fast might do them a world of good, and the true extent of their support and the high esteem in which they are held, will become generally known.

Finally, Gandhi if he were alive today would be travelling - on foot, barebodied, armed only with a walking-stick - among the riot-torn localities of Gujarat, trying to bring peace and sense to peoples` minds, as he did in Noakhali during the riots following Partition. That is something that today`s politicians will not do and lack the stature to do, even while they sit in their drawing rooms and pretend to wring their hands.

re:Reply #: 18

Romair,

Gandhi used the muslim-hindu rife to his advantage. what kind of bullsh!t is that. You imply Gandhi was in the same league as other politicians are. My contention is : he entered politics as he saw the injustice of British rule and there was no way other than to join politics to mobilise masses. He was really a saint. I do not have to prove anything. The life he lead is proof enough.

Pray enlighten us who are not so enlightened as to how Gandhi took advantage of the hindu-muslim divide. He sure payed a high price if he did. He had to go on fast unto death many times in his life to stop communal clashes. Ultimately, he died at the hands of an assasin just for being so nice to muslims. Pakistan got its share of 55crore Rs(?) due to the fast Gandhiji undertook in Birla House. GOI was not interested in paying that money as it was felt the money will be used to buy arms. It was Gandhi who took a principled stand and Pak got the money.

He lived the life of a saint, a concept most of you Pakis are perhaps not familiar with. He abhorred the religious divide as he saw through the utter futility of fighting over God.

So, do me a favor and do some more research. This time be more honest with yourself. You will see Gandhi towers over most of politicians of that period. He was not just a politician. He was a saint as well. That is why he is so different from the rest.

Sridhar

re:Reply #: 27

ylh

``As for Gandhi, I think an impartial and unbiased examination will ...``.

Since when did you become impartial and unbiased? You have a lot of growing up to do. you do not even know the meaning of the word unbiased.

Sridhar

Re: Jinnah

Guys,

So, we are back to Jinnah Vs Gandhi. It is really pathetic.

As Saxena rightly pointed out, people in US will say Jinnah who? when asked about Jinnah. Gandhi is well known. He inspired freedom struggle in a number of African states who were under subjugation. Martin Luther King was inspired by his idea of Civil Disobedience. He is held in a lot of reverence in US today.

Of course, Pakis have got yet another forum to bash Gandhi. People of this islamic state, where Shias and Sunnis kill each other regularly, where Ahmaediyas are not muslim enough, where the only real education one can hope for a child is in a madrassah (where you are taught to hate), where the only thing that unites Pakis is hatred against India, where being a Pakistani today means you are looked at with suspicion when you are checking into a foreign land (not my opinion; your own Editorials are full of it) think it fit to take on Mahatma Gandhi in front of who most Pakis (as well as most Indians i guess) today are some kind of neanderthals learning to walk.

I humbly suggest to most Pakis on this forum who are finding fault with Gandhi to emulate even one of his principles in life and see how tough it is. Let me give you guys just one eg: Gandhi practised what he preached. Those who have tried to do this alone know how difficult that is. What Pakistan and India (and the whole world) need is more of Gandhi like people and less of OBL.

Sridhar

re:Reply #: 22

tvarad,

In India, just speaking English is good enough to give the impression you are educated. All the more better if you can also write articles in a newspaper. There is a word Nani Palkhiwala coined many years ago for people who are educated according to traditional definition and yet behave like ignorant viz Educated Illiterate (EI). I think people like Farzana belong to that group. There is little hope for the muslim communty in India when we have the likes of Farzanas and Syed Shahabuddins.

Sridhar

````Alas, there were not enough Gandhis to go around````(Shammi)

You said it Shammi miaN -- you said it.

re:Reply #: 53

roohi,

This song always moves me to tears. It was also Gandhiji`s favorite song. It has been sung by Lata with good effect. I wish i could translate it. Perhaps Aakar Patel or other Gujjus in this forum might favor us with a translation.

Sridhar

rsidhar,

Only the facts please. Michael Jackson is really famous, too ... doesn`t make him the best musician.

What Versey has written is true. Time to give up this fascist one track hagiography of Gandhi and his legacy. Read `Gandhi or Gandhiism` by BR Ambedkar. We aren`t saying anything different.

RE: Reply #: 67 sadna

``tvarad #66

Your bias is in taking Farzana`s views to represent the dynamics of an entire community, a honor you donot extend to your own views(wrt S.Indians or Hindus) or to those of other posters here, who in your eyes doubtless speak only for themselves.``

Correction: my statement on South India is a personal viewpoint with the implication being that I will work towards convincing South Indians of a bleak future for them in a saffron brigade dominated India. I will not insult their intelligence by purporting to speak for them. Neither do I speak for Hindus. I speak as a citizen of India who believes that the ideal Indian state is where church is kept far from state.

PS: I might not be unbiased... but is patrick french also unbiased?

From the looks of it, `oooh more people know Gandhi than Jinnah thats why gandhi is great` .. you need a lot of growing up to do as well. We are left to judge the greatness of these men as per the general populace of the US... who probably are not even aware of where India is located, and who think all Arabs are Muslims and all Muslims are Arabs.

Time to ask some educated people... as Patrick french so beautifuly : `Jinnah is unfortunately the most undervalued statesmen of the 20th century, whose achievements deserve a far greater recognition`...

Yet even with that `undervaluation`, Jinnah is rather well known amongst the educated elite, and professors. All my political science professors knew about him, all my history professors knew about him and all my Economics professors knew about him as well. How do I know? Because I asked!

YLH You love to hate. It will be not worth any political science professor`s salt if he / she did not know of the ``wine drinking ``, ``pork eating`` ouch .. liberator of the ``pure people``.

Secondly I do know about certain Arabs from centuries ago , yessir I do Know him. But that does not mean I approve of the general philosophy propounded by him.

YLH might say billions do it anyway. Millions smoke pot or worse, does it make it very healthy for the general populace to accept that as a healthy practice.

YLH must probably hold a candle for all his coreligionists being killed in his land in the name of the ``true religion``.