They Shoot Kashmiri Pandits, Dont They?

#164 by harimau on April 1, 2003 9:42pm PT
Sure Capt. Alexander Hamilton could have seen anything. Im sure he must have seen many thives and drunkards, murderers too among muslims. But Im yet to see any muslims say that this is a accepted practice.

#163 by harimau on April 1, 2003 9:42pm PT
you mean the Tamizh!?? and I saw website by a bengali lady describe a Tamil dish MoorKulu!! I wonder if any body in tamizh land will recongize the dish!

Adnan_Rafiq @ # 138:

Although your post is addressed to some one else, I am taking the liberty of responding to it ;)

You wrote:
``The Kashmir issue is a scarecrow our army has used successfully to justify its unnatural and disproportionate budget. It allows them to whitewash their expensive cars, bungalows and other civic amenities that they never pay for. It serves their purpose by providing a convenient detour to shift attention away from the true problem facing Pakistan: themselves.``

My response:
Are you sure that solidarity with Kashmiris is not the aspirations of the People of Pakistan? Are you sure that our armymen are living in such a luxury that if given a chance you would love to have that luxury too? I mean getting posted on Pak-Afghan border or in Siachen on a short notice of 15 days could be your definition of luxury, it surely is not mine even, though I like to adventure travel.

You wrote:
``We have no right to ask the Indians to sit down and negotiate with the very same people who engineered Kargil and supported oppressive regimes such as the Taliban. As far as I am concerned, I did not elect Musharraf or his coterie of corrupt and ruthless generals and brigadiers. They came by force and stay by means of sheer intimidation and violence. As such, they have no right to represent me in any international or domestic dispute. ``

My response:
We are not asking Indians to sit down with General Musharraf. Indians should negotiate with our elected Government. After elections, army is not representing you. Depending upon where you constituency is / was, you have your representatives in the form of MQM or MMA (guestimating from some of your previous posts that you belong to urban Sindh). Please see if they have any difference of opinion on Kashmir or difference of opinion from Military on Kashmir.

You wrote:
``Today, our own cities are burning. Ethnic, religious and political strife is reaching maddening heights. MMA and fundamentalism is gradually permeating the subconscience of an entire generation who have lost their faith in a system that never rewards their hard work and ambitions. Let`s forget about Kashmir. Pakistan has become a sick nation. And sick soldiers do not win wars. Let Farzana and those who chose to stay back in 47 worry about their own fate in the manner which makes most sense to them. Let`s talk about Pakistan -- the persecution of shias, the indifferent attitude we have toward our fellow ``Pakistanis``, namely the Biharis stranded in Bangladesh, the rise of fanaticism in our villages and cities, etc.

My response:
Adnan, would you be a bit specific? Which of our city is burning? Which of the two religions are warring with each other? Which of the two ethnic groups are trying to wipe each other out? How are all Shias being persecuted by entire Sunnis or vice versa? How is MMA and fundamentalism sweeping Pakistan considering that they only got 11% of the vote compared to over 60% by moderates and nationalists? You come up with specifics and I will be honored to interact with you on the matter.

Biharis is an issue that even MQM does not raise any longer.

Finally you wrote:
``Lastly, I want to convey my sorrow to the families and friends of the 24 ``human beings`` including 2 (?) precious children who died as a result of this conflict. As a father, I want you to know that I understand the pain one might feel at the loss of a child. As a husband, I want you to know that I share your agony at the loss of a loved one. Their deaths cannot be justified no matter what. ``

My response:
This last para is to the point and everyone agrees with you whole-heartedly. However, my advise to Indians will always be to stop acting as patrons of Kashmiri Pundits. The latter should always consider Kashmir as their home and work out some alliance with the majority there.

nakhok @ # 141

``Kashmir Banega Pakistan`` is not a slogan of the Kashmiris, by the Kashmiris and for the Kashmiris....

I only said Pundit should provide leadership to Kashmiris to enable them to turn their wishes into reality. The wishes could be to merge with Pakistan, remain with India or be independent.

But unless we let the Kashmiris express their wishes through plebiscite, how will we ever find that out?

[#156 by ali87 on April 1, 2003 3:19pm PT
...
The song is a hindu song. The context in which it was written and in which it was repeatedly reffered was intensely Anti-Muslim. Its imageiry is of Idol Worshiping.]

No, it is not a hindu song. Unlike so many formal deities like Lakshmi (Goddess of Wealth), Saraswati (Godess of Learning), motherland is not a formal deity but a concept. But since Hindus do not have a taboo of not showing anything as statue they will make statue of anything and everything. Like for example, Gandhi, Netaji and so on. These historical figures have been made up as stutues. Same way if you want to represent graphically India as your motherland then just draw an outline of country in background and show a beautiful but modestly clad female in foreground.

May be in prehistoric past when a deity of Saraswati was formally recognised, it merely started as a concept. The concept could have been the idea that Learning and Education is important. Prehistorical man may have been building statues just for heck of it. May be just to keep his ability to use tools in shape. May be to keep his tools in shape. Or may be just to pass time. Statue making and rituals which use statues and generally obesessing about these rituals does not make an average Hindu lose sight of truth and honesty.

Concept of nationhood is also nothing more than an idea. It recognises usefulness of having a common system of laws and pooling of human and natural resources. A person who sings Vande Mataram does not necessarily lose sight of very real issues India faces. Characterising Vande Mataram as Hindu shows childish, naive, unsophisticated and simplistic way of thinking.

Isn`t there a Pakistani song: ``Sohani Dharti, Allah Rakkhe ...``? Now who can say such a idiotic thing? Does ``sohani`` mean beautiful? Now a woman can be beautiful but never heard of Dharti being beautiful. But still to some Paki the song brings tears to their eyes. If Vande Mataram is Hindu then Sohani Dharti is also Hindu. At this rate everything is Hindu because somewhere there is deification of a secular concept.

Most of Indians do not know the content of the story of which Vande Mataram was a part. Most of Indians simply think that the story roused many Bengalis to fight for nation. Imagery of a nation as mother energised them. Most of Indians know the story in only vague sketchy skeletal detail.

Only an obsessed Islamic (who never wanted to be part of India in the first place), will read such a story minutely with no other aim but to discover some anti-muslim sentiment lurking in some insignificant sentence mouthed by some character in the story. Such people are beyond help. Such people will be unhappy in any situation no matter what. Such people go through their entire life imagining one or the other insult in anything and everything majority community does.

For such people even the Hindi movie song of Do Ankhen Barah Hath (E Malik Tere Bande Hum...), which is invokation of a non-denominational God, will become a Hindu prayer. Omar Shekh, murderer of Pearl, had refused to participate in a prayer in Tihar jail when this song was sung. I am all for abstaining from such prayers. But Sheikh is supposed to have objected on ground that it is anti-Islamic which is ludicrous.

If idea of being citizen of a Hindu majority country itself is anti-Islamic, then natural corollary is: leave the country. Go. Go to Pakistan. Go anywhere. Don`t kill your fellow human beings. Be happy by all means in hell, if hell is where you can be happy. Go to hell.

reasonable ali87, vande matram, and discrimination

Since we follow a `corrupt` religion and ali87 (after killing innocent men, women, and children) follows the `true` religion, his refusal to sing Vande Matram must be obviously honored.

Sometime back I realized what Islam was all about, what explains a person like ali87.

We were discussing `there-is-no-compulsion-in-islam` islamic message to non muslims to either accept islam or be discriminated against by Muslims. The same Ali87 who doesnt want to sing vande matram because it was written by someone who didnt think highly of muslims, argued that this `there-is-no-compulsion-in-islam` islamic principle was just fine. There was no harm in non muslims giving up their religion if they expected equal treatment from Muslims. What`s in religion, after all?

Why Most Muslims Support Saddam?

Syed Kamran Mirza

It is almost a mystery how people’s sentiment works. Especially, I do not quite fathom how and why almost 99.9999% Muslims today wholeheartedly support Iraqi president Saddam Hossain. Widespread war protests have erupted throughout the Muslim world on daily basis. Is it for the sake of peace, or is it because they are saddened by the loss of human lives in war? Is it because they are exercising their ardent force of humanity, or is it because they are simply motivated by Islamo-mania? Which one is correct? Let me examine this case in point:

Who is Saddam Hossain?

Saddam Hossain is known as the most brutal, despotic tyrannical dictator of the century. There is no match or no parallel for him if we compare all the qualities of Saddam Hossain with any other despotic dictor. This diabolic dictator killed over two millions Muslims (Sunni, Shiites and Kurdish together) during his 24 years of despotic rule. He gassed tens of thousands of his own peoples (Kurdish muslims), killed/assassinated hundreds of thousands of his own muslim brothers, tortured/maimed/imprisoned tens of thousands of his own people. He even killed or imprisoned many of his own relatives. And he drove 500,000 thousands of his own citizens out of the country. Just other day a CNN reporter was interviewing one such Iraqi dissident (can not remember name, but he was a high level officer under Saddam’s Govt.). Reporter asked him if he was worried about many co-lateral damage/killings of civilian in Iraq during US intense bombing (daisy cutters). This Iraqi replied: “Saddam annihilated more than 2 millions Iraqi citizen (All Muslims) during his 23 years of dictatorial rule. Why should I be worried for a few thousands of collateral loss of lives to free Iraqi people from the cruel hands of Saddam?”

He plundered oil-wealth of Iraq only to become one of the richest man (Owned $7 Billions fortune in foreign banks) on earth, built more than 45 luxurious Kingly Palaces leaving 60% of his own citizen unfed or poorly fed. He gathered most of the lethal weapons of mass destruction and he poisoned his own people in a thousands. Invaded and occupied his Muslim brotherly country Kuwait and fought a terrible war lasting more than eight years with his Muslim neighbor Iran killing millions of Muslims. Yet Muslims got to support Saddam Hossain.

Why? Simply because Saddam is a born Muslim and his country is a Muslim populated country. It really does not matter that Saddam is a devilish human being, does not matter Saddam never helped any Muslim or non-Muslim country with humanitarian aid (By the way, America and Britain are the greatest champions of humanitarian help throughout the whole world irrespective religion, race or creed), but it is most important religious duty for every Muslim to support another Muslim. It is the most holy teaching of Islam to support and love fellow Muslim and it is the rule of thumb in Islamic doctrine. THIS IS KNOWN AS ARDENT DUTY OF IALAMIC UMMA. I call it “umma-bazi”, or syndrome of Islamic Brotherhood. The ethics and equal justice applies only for fellow Muslims and not for non-Muslims or any infidels.

Interestingly, Muslims of course can fight another Muslims and in that case, Muslims can choose their respective friends whom to support, but when comes the conflict between a Muslim vs. non-Muslim—every Muslim should blindly support Muslim only. This is the ardent duty of Islamic Ummabazi (Islamic Brotherhood). Remember first Gulp war in 1991? Saudi Clerics were protesting the involvement of America and other western infidels to rescue Kuwaiti Muslims with pure Quranic fatwas. They did not like that an infidel country do the job of removing Iraqi occupation of another Muslim country. Also please try to refresh your memory and recapitulate what happened during our liberation war in 1971. Entire Muslim world blindly and ardently supported Pakistan marauding soldiers to kill and rape Bangalee infidels (Hindus) and not so good Bangalee Muslims. Even our own Bengali Mullahs/Maulanas/Madrasha students (Razakars and Al-Badars) and pukka (pure) Muslims did support Pakistani invaders and fought in favor of Pakistan only to save Islam, read Pakistan.

You should not be surprised for that at all! Because to all Arab Muslims Bangalees were not good Muslims at all. But I can bet million dollars that if, ‘71 war of liberation was between Bangalees and Indian government—entire Muslim world would have definitely supported Bangalees in their struggle. Does this make it crystal-clear why today entire Muslim populated world including Bangladesh support Saddam’s regime today?

Here is a historical account/incident to support my claim:

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE REVIVALIST MOVEMENT IN ISLAM - Abul A`la Maududi,page 65, footnote:- ``THE MORAL CONDITION OF THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS OF THOSE DAYS CAN BE GAUGED FRFOM THE FACT THAT, WHEN HALAKU KHAN ASKED FOR THEIR VERDICT AS TO WHO WAS SUPERIOR BETWEEN AN UN-BELIEVING JUST KING AND A BELIEVING UN-JUST RULER,THEY PRONOUNCED UNHESITATINGLY IN FAVOR OF THE FORMER``.

Abul Ala Maududi was furious at this unIslamic opinion of those Islamic scholars. Maududi actually wanted to hear that Muslims did say that ‘believing Muslim but unjust king was the superior to the un-believing just king’. Because, in Islam a Muslim is always superior to any non-muslim/infidels. In the above historical quote what we have learned is that, non-Muslim ruler can never be the best ruler than a despotic Muslim ruler. Besides this above historical account, there are many sahi hadiths and Quranic dictum which suggest the Islamic principal of supporting Muslim only if the conflict is with non-Muslim. Remember mother Teresa—an angelic woman? She will not go to heaven and no Muslim should praise her for her extra-ordinary humanity either, because she was not a Muslim. That was what we heard from most erudite Islamists.

Do you know this? If the Iraq was not a Muslim country, or tomorrow world hears that Saddam and his countrymen have converted to other religion (Christian, Hindu or Buddhism) all the people of Muslim world will be totally silent and will go with their normal business. Or, if this war of America-Brit was against North Korean despotic communist ruler, no Muslim country would ever demonstrate any street show like the one we are encountering today. I can bet my bottom dollars on this assertion of mine. Don’t believe me? Here are some tips for you: Just 3-4 years ago NATO-Pact countries viciously attacked Serbian Yugoslavian nation of Dictator Slobodan Miloslave (another despotic leader) only to save a endangered Muslim-European nation Bosnia. Entire Muslim world was deadly silent; rather Muslims were happy that Christian nations were whipping another Christian nation (to save a Muslim nation) with relentless bombings and untold destructions. No, I have not heard any Muslim to tell that they were so sorry that NATO bombings are killing innocent women and children in a Catholic nation of Europe! Picture among the Muslim countries would have been quite different if Miloslave was a Muslim ruler like Saddam. We have not seen any such sympathy-demonstration after the dastardly incident of 9/11 in any Muslim country. Rather we have seen many joyous cheerful dances in the Arab streets for the success of al-Qaeda Islamic terrorists.



War for oil: (?)

Most frequent claims by Muslims are: (1) America attacked Iraq to grab Iraqi oil; (2) this war is against Islam, (3) America and the west want to destroy Islam. When Afghanistan was attacked—they told us that American infidels want to destroy Islam in Afghanistan and want to convert Afghan people to Christianity. Other day one friend of mine was telling me that—America will destroy Islam in Iraq and they will convert entire Iraqi people into Christianity. Some even claim that America will occupy entire Arab to grab their oil and to destroy Islam. Remember first Gulf war in 1991? During first Gulf war to liberate Kuwait, many Muslims erudite told us that America is going to occupy Arab oils (with this excuse of ‘Kuwaiti liberation war’) and to destroy Islam.

Fact of the matter is, Afghan was liberated from those mad Taliban’s and Islam still exists in Afghanistan. Afghan peoples are much happier than before. Islam still remains and flourishing in Arab peninsula and America did not occupy Arab oils. So what? Muslims will still cry for Saddam and cry for Islam. Surprisingly, Christian west never cry for any Christian, they never cry by saying “Christianity is in danger or Christianity will be destroyed”. In fact west never bring their religious identity at the fore for any matter. They never go to the street when an innocent Christian-born human being is slaughtered by Muslims, or a Christian Church is bombed by Islamic terrorists in Pakistan. Do you know what? To day all over the world pure Muslims are declaring Islamic Jihad against the infidel west. I wonder where are those big-mouth Islamists who were telling us “Jihad means peaceful struggle” ? Where they now who were telling us that in Islam suicide are is not permitted? Only Allah (SBT) knows when Muslim will be human again and tell us the truth about real Islam!

#155 by dost-mittar on April 1, 2003 12:48pm PT
//..If you adopt the same tone in articles as you do in your Interacts, you will most certainly have fewer enemies. ..//

May be this ``toning down`` by Farzana is because (I hope) she has realized her error in blaming the victims of a massacre. And the absurdity of dismissing such an barbaric incident as ``just politics``. And the fact that those massacred in Gujrat and those massacred in Kashmir are both victims , they are not ``just politics``.

The population figures I quoted in my post were referring to the Kashmir Valley.

dost-mittarji (#155):
[If you adopt the same tone in articles as you do in your Interacts, you will most certainly have fewer enemies. But I guess the confrontation-junkie in you would prefer to keep things the way they are:-) ]

I am depending a lot on that smiley at the end of your post to believe that you are not deadly serious. For one, enemies is too strong a word, and I like to believe I have none. Even so, if that eventuality were to arise, the persons would nto be anonymous creatures to reach that stage.

Re. confrontationist-junkie, I would dearly like everyone to agree with me! If the tone in the interacts is different, I do not forget I am dealing on a one-to-one with people. In an article one is expressing oneself to an `issue`.

Regards,
Farzana

Ref Sudalaikkannu #133

[Apparently the willingness to sing vande mataram is some kind of a loyalty test for muslims. Read this part from the interview:
I hope so! You have a problem with singing Vande Mataram?
I have sung the song.]

I had to read this twice and then realized that it was not YOU who has sung the song but Syed Shahabuddin who was being interviewed.

I don`t think you can get sounds like `g`, `gh`, `sh`, etc., out of your mouth. Sheesh, you can`t even say the name of your mother tongue properly. I remember you Fakhrs going around saying, ``Tamil moliyin sirapeluthu `la`.`` (Sorry, this really cannot be translated for non-Tamil speakers. There are three distinct characters signifying various pronunciations approximating the letter `l` in English. The last character in Tamil is the third of these and the speakers of the above sentence would use the second while proudly proclaiming that the third `l` isn`t available in any other language. Which is of course not true. Malayalam has the same latter and all Malayalis, regardless of caste, education, or upbringing, pronounce it perfectly. Which, of course , leads to the next question: how do you identify a Tamil-speaker as a brahmin? Answer: They are the ones who can pronounce the word ``Tamil`` properly.)

Ref nakhok #140

[Re: #123 by Ali87

Ali87 wrote, ``As for the christians I dont know if they are bigoted or not. But they calim to surrender to a god and then they courropt his teachings. Homosexuality is ok, and I dont think I need to go into the full list. for nearly 1900 years one couldnt divorce Now one can go to the church and also glorify live in relationships.``

Ali87 is making a generalization about Christians that can as easily be made about any religious group, and certainly about Muslims.]

Oh, well. Here I am reading the book ``An Account of the East-Indies Being the Observations and Remarks of Capt. Alexander Hamilton from the Year 1688-1723`` and here is his remark about the Gentiles (he refers to Hindus in this manner) of Surat and adjacent country: ``They abhor Buggery and Sodomy and the Mahometans for that Account, because they use them.``

Just FYI.

#129 by rsridhar on April 1, 2003 8:18am PT
Men like Justice Ismail and Abdul Kalam are rarities......

In opinoin of many hindus and also the self defined secular hindus the only good muslim is one who can pray to a couple of hindu gods on his way to the masjid.

If he happens quaff a few drinks with his hindu friends then nothing like it. People like these are displayed as examples of how good muslims can get if they want to. They are epitome of tolerance and understanding.

What escapes the people who suggest such route for tolerance is that this is not tolerance this is abandoning of belifs.

Why is it people like Sridhar (and the media) cant find any examples of pious muslims who are kind and friendly to all while retaining their belifs. Surely there are millions of them in India (If they were not then India would have been in flames every day). On the other hand what people like sridhar are displaying by giving example of Muslims who worship hindu gods etc and exthoritng muslims to follow their lead is not tolerance but bigotry.

The advice is to fall in line. You are not calling for accepting the hindus for what they are, You are not calling to people to refranin from hating hindus, You are not calling for respecting the others religon by leaving them to it. you are calling mulsims to take a few gods from the hindu pantheon.

------

Why did so many hindus become pro-BJP recently?

because of sustained propagnda.

-------

It is this intransigence of the muslim community, the refusal to see anything other than there own narrow definition of religion and this ``ghetto`` mentality of muslims in India----


Advice is to come out of the gettho, sing vande mataram, adopt a few gods or start releating your religion in context and principles of hindusm,
Accept the broader definiton of religon as defined by hinduism

----
This anger is real.
-------

yes it is based on propangada and on a lust for dominance ie changing the others belifs
----

Educated Indians (especially muslims) need to understand this and do what is right.-----

ie sing vande mataram, sing praises of Saraswati in schools, Pray to a photo of mother India in school, Relate your religon to Hindu religon by adopting hindu imagery.

yes the Educated Muslims would be the right people to do this change (it requries some education to commit skillfull distortion).

________


I suggested accomodation on Babri masjid as a way out. BJP has exploited this issue and will continue to do so. Court case is dragging on and who knows how much longer it is going to take. Muslims in India have nothing to lose.

you are confusing the issues here with vande mataram, babri masjid, Abdul kalams prayers to sarswati whose Idol stands next to his bed.
Imposition of hindi.

--------

Muslims are all for accomadation. They dont insist that people quote from the quran in school, they dont ask the the bhramans to eat beef, They dont object to hindus worshiping any deity. They dont ask hindus to sing muslim religous songs.

------------


#127 by rsridhar on April 1, 2003 6:31am PT

For most Indian muslims, this is a hindu song and hence should not be sung. This is the kind of mindset that needs to be changed. A similar mindset is displayed by Hindutva elements. They would like to ban everything that is Islamic. It is all in the mind.

________

Like you said it the mind set displayed by hindutav elemets is to ban every thing Islamic. The mulsims on the other hand dont ask hindus to offer namaz or recite the Quran. They only sont want to sing songs which are not permitted by Islam whether they are Hindu, chirstian or buddhist or of any other denomination.

On the babri masjid issue I wonder in what logic you are advocating that demanding that the court decide is communal or Instragient. Any civilised country will accept this form of decision making. The problem here is there is a section of people who say they will not obey the courts that they themselves have formed and agreed to. To me it seems the problem is those people and the people who suppourt them or make excuses for them.
It would be better if you divert your energies to defeat the communal forces than ask muslims to accomodate. It would establish the rule of law in the land. It is shameful that you blame muslims because there are are people who oppose them and are taking the law in their hand.
The accusation of Appeasment is aslo exposed as a lie. Now that the congress is not there even then there is no solution to the Ayodhya issue. So to blame the congress for appeasment is rubbish. what exactly was congress doing? giving any special benifts to muslims? where they any jobs or extra sops given to muslims.
I know you will start off with the Personal Civil Law issue. I dont see how that can be appeasment to muslims. After the law only is applicable to muslims not hindus, In what way do muslims take away anything from hindus by having the facility to marry more than one wife? Are there limitied number of marriages in the land that muslims are taking away from the hindus?

In case Hindu complaint is that muslims are having a special previlage by having the facility to get married to more than one woman I would say that muslims have absolutely no objections if hindus also started marrying more than one woman. We are not stopping the hindus from polygamy neither are we taking away more of the marriages from the stock of national marriages than we deserve.

In any case with the changing social mores this argument is absolutely stupid. If the jealously is that muslim men have can marry more women thus are gaining something special that hindu men arent. Then the Hindu men should also have a problem with people who have Extra Marital sex. That should then be banned because the chaste married hindu men then would not be getting what the cheaters are getting. And same goes for Pre-Marital sex.

These arguments go to the ridiculous.

I dont see anything wrong with Muslims stand on Babri Masjid, vande Mataram at all. There is no apeasment of muslims in fact the opposite is a fact. The hindu people are being misguided as it is obvious that you too fall in that category. the Hindus who take pride in their maturity, and clear headed thinking should not take the shelter of misguidance or being emotive. The rise in fundamentalism in Hindus clearly is because of the Propaganda of Sangh and the incapability of the Hindus to see the propagand and learn from the facts. If muslims are guilty of any thing then it is of not countering the propaganda of apeasment effectively, In this people like Sridhar and the media were hardly of any help at all.

Even now if hindus are killed in kashmir media shrieks 10 hindus killed.
If muslims are killed in Bhiwandi. The newspaper says that 10 people were killed in a communal attack. The bias is all there to see even in newspapers.

It is high time people took responsibility for thieir actions and not asked for captitualition on demands and call it accomodation.

Farzana #various
Good that you are interacting here. Don`t want to mention me by name? I do believe you act like a victim with Hindu interactors, irrespective of what you say and what they say or the issues. If things are changed, well good.

PS: I believe the leaders of Kashmir including Farooq Abdullah, and the Hurriyat shouldnot be let off from the guilt of misleading their people all these years.

I heard an interview with the Prime Minister of one of Iraq`s Kurdish provinces just before the Iraq war began. When he was asked that look, the Kurdish people are split between 3 countries, don`t you think that you deserve a united Kurdistan nation-state.

The guy replied that history and geography have been very cruel to Kurds, but its time to now accept this fact and instead of leading our people down a route whose outcome is wholly uncertain(the route to winning statehood), we should concentrate on developing our people and culture within the federal republic of Iraq.

I thought this is a pragmatic man who at least on surface doesnot believe in courting Iraq`s enemies at the cost of brutalising his own people or in allowing the young men he leads to throw away their lives in a futile quest simply because HE wants to be the head of a separate country.

This Kurdish guy and his vision for Iraqi Kurds may now be swept away by force of events, who can tell.

But J&K needs some pragmatic leaders who think like him.

#156

ali87 wrote:
+++
``So why should a muslim like this song?``
+++

ali87 has provided a text of the english translation. I am sure he knows that only the first stanza has been given the status of a national song, and this is ali87`s translation for it:

Mother, I bow to thee!
Rich with thy hurrying streams,
bright with orchard gleams,
Cool with thy winds of delight,
Dark fields waving Mother of might,
Mother free.
Glory of moonlight dreams,
Over thy branches and lordly streams,
Clad in thy blossoming trees,
Mother, giver of ease
Laughing low and sweet!
Mother I kiss thy feet,
Speaker sweet and low!
Mother, to thee I bow.

Note that this stanza is nothing but an ode to the motherland. It is not very different in spirit than Islamic Bangladesh`s national anthem ``Amar Sonar Bangla`` which too is an idyllic ode to the motherland.

If ali87 looks at the wording of the stanza of Bande Mataram that has been recognized as India`s national song, there is absolutely nothing in it that warrants ali87`s question:

``So why should a muslim like this song?``

A.R. Rahman had no problem in liking the song. In fact, A.R.Rahman brought it out quite eloquently that ``Bande Mataram`` in Sanskrit is nothing but ``Maa, Tijhe Salaam`` in Urdu. It is merely an ode to the motherland much like many a patriotic song around the world including Islamic Bangladesh`s ``Amar Sonar Bangla``.

If Bande Mataram was accorded the status of a national song, it was because the cry ``Bande Mataram`` had inspired many a freedom fighter thru India`s struggle for independence. Many a revolutionary had died on the gallows with ``Bande Mataram`` on his lips. ``Amar Sonar Bangla`` had inspired Bangladeshi freedom fighters similarly during the dark days of 1971.

ali87`s objections to Bande Mataram reminds me of a case that was brought in the court for banning the Koran on the grounds that it preached death and hatred against Kafirs and idolators. The Court was wise to reject the petition. And readers will be wise to reject ali87`s objections as well. And ali87, himself, will be a better man if he, like A.R.Rahman, can see that ``Bande Mataram`` is nothing but ``Maa, Tujhe Salaam`` in Urdu.

And the fact that ``Bande Mataram`` is in Sanskrit shouldn`t be a problem either. The Koran can be as easily traslated into Sanskrit as the Geeta can be translated into Arabic. A language has no religion except grammar.

Jinnah forgot this simple fact when he denied Bengali`s right to be Pakistan`s national language on the specious plea that Urdu was the language of the Muslims. And in doing so, Jinnah took the first significant step in the break-up of his Pakistan.

#127 by rsridhar on April 1, 2003 6:31am PT

This gets confusing.

The song is a hindu song. The context in which it was written and in which it was repeatedly reffered was intensely Anti-Muslim. Its imageiry is of Idol Worshiping.

So why should a muslim like this song?

True it did play a important role in galvanising mainly Hindus during the freedom movement. Which goes to show how the freedom movement including Congress embraced songs which were Anti-Muslim. An aspect which most people want to deny today.

Is it possible that this kind of instragience by the congress leaders some of whom were leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha was what caused discomfort among muslims and was among the causes(There were others though)that called for TNT. That the congress could not find any other song which would be acceptable to all is some thing which smacks of imposition of Ideas.

There was no call to ban the song by muslims then nor now nor am I propogating it. If the Hindus want to sing it is upto them but to bring it into a shpere where all communites are indicates insensitivity as well as force.

Also if it is controversial why have such a song as a national song at all.

You yourself pointed out that most hindus dont know the meaning of the song.

So there you have it. People dont know the meaning, the Muslims oppose it. So do many hindus because it means it is controverisal with muslims and yet you and many other people want to Muslims to accept it as a national song.

It just doesnt make sense unless you take pleasure in browbeating muslims.

Many people have responded in saying that nothing can be forced in a democarcy etc. Muslims make unneccassary hoopala about it blah blah.

Either they are out of touch with reality or they have some covert agenda ie to paint muslims as unreasonable.

A few quotes where force was used. You dont need a gun to use force always.


UTTAR PRADESH Minister for Basic Education Ravindra Shukla declared on November 17 that ``the order to make the singing of `Vande Mataram` compulsory stands, and will be enforced``.

more...
The controversy began at the first general body meeting of the newly-established MMC on July 12, which was adjourned when corporators of the Shiv Sena, Republican Party of India (RPI) and the BJP demanded that work begin with Vande Mataram and end with the national anthem.

Muslim corporators from the JD (S) and the Samajwadi Party took offence saying this violated the Islamic code

A few years back the BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh government issued an order that all primary school students in the state must start their day by ``worshipping a portrait of Bharat Mata,`` and reciting Vande Mataram.



To understand how the so called moderates want to integrate muslims...


an article by Atal Behari Vajpayee. Titled ``The Sangh is My Soul,`` which was first published by the RSS organ Organiser in its issue of May 7, 1995,

``The Muslims of this country [India] can be treated in three ways: One is tiraskar which means if they will not themselves change, leave them alone, reject them as our compatriots. Second is puraskar which is appeasement, i.e., bribe them to behave.... The third way is parishkar meaning [to] change them, that is, restore them to the mainstream by providing them samskaras (culture).`` We want to change them by offering them the right samskaras (Hindu culture). Though the BJP projects Vajpayee as sobre, moderate and liberal, the article amply demonstrates his utter hatred and intolerance of Muslims.