The Secularity of India

harish_hyd #326 I dont disagree with you: while hindu fanaticism was alive and well at the time Gandhi was assassinated, the vast majority of the indian population (regardless of religion) was concerned with roti, kapda aur makaan. As was evidenced in the recent elections in India, e.g.

All I am saying is, that the same is true of pakistan or muslims or any other community of people. Its just that the muslim counterparts of BJP in Pakistan never did anywhere close as BJP has done in elections. Similarly, just as RSS was banned in India once, the Godfather of the maulvis, Maudoodi, was once under a death sentence in Pakistan (in the 1950`s). Clearly, fanatics have strengthened, not weakened, over time in both India and Pakistan, given the greater acceptance of these extremists in both countries. Maybe things will get better from here as government level relations improve, but lets keep our fingers crossed.

All we can do as individuals is to use our own eyes and minds, and not allow us to be swayed by government propoganda lines or driven by fanatics into demonizing or even negative stereotyping of other communities (as seems to exist even among educated people in the subcontinent, as easily evidenced on chowk).

tahmed, the forerunner of the RSS, was banned for some years after Gandhi was killed, and apparently not a whimper of open protest. Personally, to me, this indicates a non-democratic society, but I suppose I should consider that the Brits had just left. I guess though, it does mean they wouldn`t have won a vote for Most Popular. Look, even 15 years ago, ``respectable``, educated people didn`t vote for the RSS. I have a great-uncle who joined the RSS in 1989-90, and my grandmother said with conviction, ``I always knew there was something wrong with him.`` They are very backward when it comes to women, but kya karen, they`re all like that, I can`t make them all Scandinavians. They`ll learn.

#291 by tahmed32

[And certainly hindu fanaticism was alive and well when Gandhi was killed, obviously.]

Our Pakistani friends never tire of pointing out that Pakistan is a moderate society and most Pakistanis are more worried about roti, kapda aur makaan than religion, inspite of the fact that bloodshed is a routine in Pakistan and barely a day passes without news of some violent incident. But just the one incident of Mahatma Gandhi`s assassination is sufficient for them to declare that Hindu fanaticism was alive and well even in the 40s.

sparchus #325 I am well aware sir of the way of thinking of 90 percent indians when they first come to chowk, having seen it for years by now on chowk, and your post is no exception. So lets not waste one another`s time exchanging ridicule. bye bye.

#323
Mr tahmed32 what are your current views on mia musharraf sir?as an indian i am really curious to know that does islam make a person that submissive that they forget about their rights too?

Talking about the muslim heart.
I just fail to understand what these muslim guys and gals want out of life.wherever in the world they are not in a majority they fail to adjust and live with others.now everybody but the muslim could not be at fault for this right?
Take muslim minorities with christians.USA, Russia,France,former Yugoslavia.They are just not willing to live in peace.no sir, we cannot live with kafirs can we?we want our own damn islamic republic or a kinghdom or dictatorship which would be even better.
Muslims with jews.Better not talk about it.
Musims with hindus.India has been ravaged by their rampant population explosion, backwardness and a rigidity to change.
now it seems they have a spat coming up with buddhists in sri lanka and china.
they had already displaced the zoarastrians from iran ages back.
what next?
Beware, the Lapps of finland.do not allow muslims into your midst or we could see some kind of terrorist activitity in scandidavia too!!!

dost mittar #321 I dont think you mean the ``hudood bill``. That was actually an ordinance passed by zia (nawaz sharif had nothing to do with it) back in 1979 as part of a series of ordinances and actions he took after hanging bhutto in his attempt to turn pakistan into an ``islamic state``. I think a careful study of the hudood ordinance and the broader package of evil actions zia and what happened when he tried that will reinforce the earlier point i was making:

Briefly, the ``package`` included (a) public lashings of journalists in his failed attempt to curb free speech, and (b) saudi-like punishments of chopping of hands of ``thieves``. On (a), despite his cruel attempts, the journalists stood their ground and he had to back off ultimately. He tried placing a mike next to the journalist during public lashings in an attempt to intimidate the public with the cries of agony of the journalists being lashed - didnt work. as i understand, the journalists just used the mike to continue speaking out against the government. so they took the mikes away. On (b), every single pakistani doctor who was asked to chop off hands (surgically) refused on grounds of ethical principles. Finally, the b!astard gave up on trying to ``islamize`` pakistanis into submission, and (as Ambassador Kux of the US State Department writes in his book on US-Pakistan relations) decided to move to more fertile ground in afghanistan by using the taliban as his cats paw to take over that country...and the rest is history. hudood and blasphemy laws continue to this day of course despite public pressure.

thus, even a cold-blooded and ruthless dictator like zia could not succeed in introducing maudoodism (I refuse to call it islam, since the kinds of actions described above represent an insult to the true spirit of islam) in pakistan. that is why i am optimist regarding the future of pakistan as a progressive and secular nation.


coming back to nawaz sharif, i think i already discussed the constitutional amendment, and i suppose you and i can agree to disagree in our interpretations. while no doubt his inviting of vajpayee was too much for musharaff to accept who promptly sabotaged it with kargill, the fact is that the military had more basic reasons for resenting civilian politicians (namely, they had the goal of giving the military a constitutional role in the government).

AlephNull #309: Yes indeed. We could all benefit from enlightenment.

tahmed32:
``That is, given the lack of public support (and indeed strong resentment, including a case in the high court that received much publicity by challenging this as unconstitutional), there is no doubt the army guessed it could challenge sharif, and this guess was correct. So, I think you just proved my point.``

I am glad you think so. But I do not think that the army action was popular because of the hadood bill, although it did make Nawaz unpopular in the English elite class. There were more important reasons: he had antagonised the mullah-army nexus by inviting and warming up to Vajpayee; he had shown tremendous arrogance even against the supreme court of Pakistan; he messed with the Pakistani army; and he became victim of Kargil in the same way Ayub had become a victim of Tashkent - namely the Pakistanis were led to believe that they had won the war in Kargil, and his withdrawal of troops after a visit to Washington was considered as losing the battles won by the brave Pakistani soldiers under the American pressure. One could even argue that the Hadood bill was an attempt to consolidate his support for a face-off with the powerful army brass.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

rahul_capri #316
Correct. But currently I doubt any one will get anywhere (except the morgue) arguing that the Quran is not divine.

That is where IMO, doing things the `right` way in India is very important.

Instead of setting up a head-on confrontation, as long as Indian Muslims have the option to subscribe to secular law in most or all matters if they so wish, and Indian Muslim women are enabled do well in `secular` matters, core deep-rooted religious beliefs need not be meddled with, just like with other Indians.

When I argue this way, I think of how Gandhiji`s approach to reform of untouchability was considered `too slow` and `too patronizing` by Dalits. A full frontal attack was what was called for in that case - which led to laws outlawing untouchability and affirmative action.

Dr. Ambedkar preferred an even more frontal attack - he wanted Gandhiji to disown Vedic Hinduism altogether. Ambedkar argued that the Vedas are considered divine and contain the seeds of varna and hence untouchability. As long as the Vedas are considered divine, varna and hence untouchability would persist.

IMO, that solution would have been too radical and moreover politically untenable, because you had to get all Hindus to disown the Vedas, not just Gandhiji. All you would get by asking Hindus to disown the Vedas wholesale is an infintely more virulent violent form of BJP/VHP, regardless of the fact that the percentage of Hindus who ever even read the Vedas is miniscule.

And Gandhiji did have a point in his social reform approach, too, because while laws outlawing untouchability were absolutely the right thing to do, promulgating law gives only limited benefit until the underlying social attitudes are changed too via social reform movements. That involves reaching out to the entire Hindu community and changing attitudes across the board. Including myself, so clearly I can speak about it.

In the case of Muslim personal law, questioning the divinity of the Quran is wholly Muslims` prerogative, IMO.

In addition it might be solely for Muslims to decide what is appropriate in this case, social reform or legal measures. Or it might not. I would for instance like some insight into whether it is indeed my business or none of my business, - should I be a nonbusybody majority who does not meddle with minority autonomy or should I be a busybody Indian trying to extend the principle of equality to every other Indian.

Sorry, this was a long post.

sadna #308
``IMO, the underlying issue could be more basic than merely the desire to wield power of religious scholars. ``
Yes, along with that they are MCPs in a society in which the females are oppressed. Its just that the mullah has the stick of the Quran with him.If suppose, the pandit, had the stick of,say Gita, with him, he would have done the same.
dost-mittar #313
``Now if I were a patriotic muslim reading your post, do you think that I would remain patriotic after reading it? ``
Your question has some significance but it is not entirely valid.Patriotism is not belief in some nationalistic ideology.It is not the hatred of the enemy country but the love of your own.Its the attachment to the place where you grow up and where you form your opinion.It does not go away just because of a few questions.

As usual, Omar. I`m saying Murdoch has no street cred on Iraq.He allied himself with the US, yet that little paper defied him. Indian journos are probably impressed you have the courage to go to work. If Dawood lived in my neighbourhood, I`d be worried too..
You don`t get anything, or you`re being perverse. I do think it might be the latter.
For someone who doesn`t care about what Indians think about him, you send an inordinate number of posts addressed to (at?) Indians, and telling me what a wonderful paper Dawn is.
Why which country?Thought you didn`t care.

I really have to stop online shopping, it leads to spending time on chowk..:)-besides blowing out my credit card bill...
Umm, dost mittar, I don`t think ballukhan is Muslim. I think Farzana does have anti- Indian thoughts, but in her defence, she`s anti-everything. That`s just her, and you do get used to it.
Gujjubania, you may have noticed that you gave yourself away, talking of a writer based in India...it sounds like you might not be there after all. I think you`re from the South though, you gave that away too, and you`ve already said you were. When you say things like that against Muslims, and you admit most Indians don`t think like you, you actually validate how some Pakis think.

Omar, you are so clueless that I just can`t be angry with you. I find I`m feeling quite indulgent towards you, like a teacher or an aunt or something, which is mildly alarming, given you`re almost middle-aged and you assure me you`re a world-famous journalist. You can keep talking to gujjubania, who says he is 17 years old, which is entirely possible, since that`s the level you operate at...

dost mittar #112 The reason I focus on Pakistan is because that is where I can speak with confidence. I can speak with some confidence of the concept of islam (to use your words) among fellow pakistanis, but not among muslims in other countries (including indian muslims).

I do think you are stretching logic to the point where it starts to scream in agony when you say that ``When I say that Muslims believe sharia to be a part of their religion, I mean it in a conceptual sense. The situation changes when the question is how many of them are in favour of the state implementing sharia. Many of those in the former category may at the same time want government to be completely secular.``

More seriously, it is true that the core message of any religion is very simple, but is converted into a christmas tree of rituals, social structures, strictures, superstitions, magical incantations, legal pronouncements, economic regulations, and so on. This mish-mash view of religion is certainly true for many people in pakistan - with some people focussing on some of the above-mentioned christmas tree decorations, some on the other, and a surprisngly large number at none of it at all. But how does one compare the magnitude of these christmas tree decorations on religion in the minds of people in india vs pakistan? Nor does it translate into public policy.

That is why, I stick to plain and objective facts: Public support for the religious (or fascist-using-religion as a tool, to bow to earlier points made on this board) BJP is far greater in India than similar support for religious parties in Pakistan.

As for nawaz sharif: he TRIED to abuse islam by declaring himself amir-ul-momineen, with his 18th amendment. But he did not succeed: indeed, this contributed to his downfall. That is, given the lack of public support (and indeed strong resentment, including a case in the high court that received much publicity by challenging this as unconstitutional), there is no doubt the army guessed it could challenge sharif, and this guess was correct. So, I think you just proved my point.