My Pakistan Diary: Roots! A Spiritual Journey

rahulmal:
I know it is more difficult to define a ``good hindu`` than a ``good muslim`` but even the latter is not so easy, as there are shias, ismailis, wahabis, deobandi, barelvis, salafis, hanafis, sufis, etc. among muslims and all of them believe in the quraan.

``How about answering some questions posed in my last post?``
They would be best answered by a coreligionist.

kaurasach:

Yes, the Gurus did ask to bear arms. But the times have changed. Now, there are often alternative ways of dealing with human rights problems.

> But if I have the ability to dispute an unjust statement, I think I should do that too.

With pleasure, HP. We are on the same page. I myself wouldn`t classify the rapes in Sindh as rapes of Hindu girls by Muslim landlords. True, being Hindu, the girls and their families suffer further disadvantages but the rapes are not Hindu-specific.

IMO social-economic oppression by one dominant class of another class of people is a common fact, present all the time in all societies. Unless one can establish clear religious motivations and inspirations, one mustn`t turn these social/political struggles into religious ones. The latter can never be solved, and are far more dangerous.

#125 by Ralph

“but in the villages Sindh, Hindu girls do not seem to be safe from Muslims feudals.”

It is not like sindhi feudals are running around holding their wieners to rape the first girl they see.
The girls that are forced by the landowners are actually daughters, sisters, and wives of people who work for them. It is horrible but it is there and there is no denying that. There may be some Hindus in there but as I said religion is not the deciding factor-social position is.
I will be surprised if that does not happen in India. There is not a whole lot of difference in Hindus and Muslims when it comes to humiliating and taking advantage of the poor in our societies.

Most of the Hindus in Sindh are middleclass in different professions, businessmen, or are small landowners themselves. I am sure some of them do not hesitate to sleep with girls of their Muslim employees. In fact, I know of some who never thought religion could be a problem in bed.

``This isn`t a religious thing in itself, but if, a la Muslims, one wanted to turn it into a story of religious oppression, it wouldn`t be very hard. Don`t you think? ``

I agree with you. But if I have the ability to dispute an unjust statement, I think I should do that too.

Kaurasach.

My objection was on your blanket statement of rape.

Incidents of extortion or “Bhatta” or the protection money are common in Sindh. It is not confined to Hindus alone. The MQM of Karachi collects tremendous amount of money in Karachi and Hyderabad in Bhatta. That unfortunately is the cost of doing business in Pakistan. Mullahs too collect donations for Jihad often forcibly.

I think “Bhai” in Bombay also collect this from Hindus and Muslims alike. (At least in the movies.)

Lawlessness is a major problem everywhere in Sindh. Hindus mentioned in your post have not left Pakistan because of kidnapping or extortions. There are problems in Pakistan and Hindus are impacted by that too. I doubt that there is any systematic effort to “openly” rape Hindu girls in Pakistan.

#124 by kaurasach

Plight of Hindus in Sindh and Balochistan
By Khaled Ahmed

http://www.pakistan-facts.com/article.php/20040514194340463

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

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

HP # 122

If Pakistani rapists had to rape only non Muslim girls, many of these men would die unsatisfied. So girls may not always be picked up for religious reasons, but in the villages Sindh, Hindu girls do not seem to be safe from Muslims feudals.

This isn`t a religious thing in itself, but if, a la Muslims, one wanted to turn it into a story of religious oppression, it wouldn`t be very hard. Don`t you think?

#119 by kaurasach

“Since partition, Hindu girls are openly kidnapped and raped in Pakistan”

The Bitter truth: that no such thing has happened in Pakistan. Not once, not ever after 1947 killings in Punjab. Hindu and Sikh males then had no hesitation in lowering their cloths either.

Some people have just taken upon themselves to lie and lie with a straight face to prove their shallow points. Their self righteousness is sickening!

This moron makes an outlandish statement “since partition…” and nothing to show for it.
Pakistan is not a closed society as this awful liar thinks it is. We know about our neighbors and what’s happening in our town. If even a single Hindu girl had been raped in my neighborhood, when I lived in Pakistan, I would have known about it.

Girls are raped in Pakistan; but they are not picked to be raped based on their religion.

India has community problems. They cannot resolve bitterness in Hindu-Muslim relations in India and think that Hindu and Muslims have the same bitterness in Pakistan too.

No MethaJhoota! your hallucinating bigoted head is making up things that have no relevance to reality.

Dost-Mitter.

You are indulging in your equivalency game again.

You are projecting a mid-east/european concept of ``religion`` onto India.

In the rest of the world there is no such thing as Religion. There are a lot
of social practices based on a set of philosophies.
To be a Hindu - one needs a set of sufficiency test ( but not necessity tests)
wheras to be a christian/jew/muslim - there are are necessity tests.

This is why the pseudo-secularists can abuse dharma and get away with it.

Ignoramous fools who have not read the various philosophies and the original
texts of India proclaim Hinduism Buddhism, Sikhism Jainism as religions and
try to compare with Christianity/Islam/Judaism etc.

Indian philosophies use a core set of ideas and categories which are totally different from
concepts of ``religion`` while at the same time the followers of these philosphies
have the same social lifestyles and values. That is why people who follow Indic
panths can get along without friction for the most part.

The concept of a good Hindu does not even arise. A fellow who does not lead
a dharmic life is bound to suffer the cycles of birth and rebirth. Worldly behaviour
invites worldly responses. A fellow does not attain moksha/nirvana either in Vedanta or
Bouddha or Jaina without attaining ``knowledge``.

THat is why there are the Smritis - which deal with worldy behavior - and these
smritis can change according time and place. There are more than 80 smritis.
Then there is the Shruti - the adhyatma vidya - brahma-jnana: which can be gained
only by yoga and contemplation and meditiation and study - all this will lead to
moksha or nirvana.

I urge you to study the vaious scholarly
works and understand the dharmic panths. Unfortunately you are trying to project learnt
western/middle-eastern categories onto Indian thought.

Satyamvada # 97

Now you know, after reading # 101, the answer to your querry, why I usually go to extremes to scrape the truth from under a sugarcoating? And how hard it is.

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

stuka -- dude u work in the marriot hq and u guys have your facts wrong - the marriot in khi happens to be right next to the US consulate -- hence the attacks -- everyone in pakistan knows that the marriot is owned by sadru hashwani and part of the same group which owns the PC --

rsridhar jee -- punjabis are punjabis et al.. by the way r u implying that north and south india are a homogenous mixture ?

DMji,

``Is a hindu widow who does not become a sati and even remarries a good hindu``. Yes, Hindus expunged this practise from their belief-system, remember RamMohan Roy :-)

``Is a hindu who does not bow before a statue of a monkey god a good hindu?`` Yes, because no theological argument (as per the tenets of Sanathan dharma) can prove that a particular form of representational worship is truer than any other form. Further, even if a Hindu does not bow before any idol, he is still a good Hindu. Ever heard of `Sagun` (representational) and `nirgun` forms of God. Don`t worry if you don`t. I was talking to a Muslim friend and the topic veered to murthy pooja (as it generally does in Hindu-Muslim discussions). I told him about representational and non-representational forms of worship. He couldn`t believe this.

``Is a hindu who refuses to drink `charnamrit` in a village temple thinking it might make him sick a good hindu?`` Yes, If someone belongs to `nirgun` school of vedanta, they may not accept `charnamrita`.

How about answering some questions posed in my last post?

veeresh#111
I agree!
In fact, I wanted to write another article on Pakistan entitled, ``Stirrings of change!``. But this series was getting too long and I thought I was hogging too much chowk space. But I have noticed some very interesting changes like (a) renewed interest in panjabi music and language (b) revival of sarees (c) revival of interest in classical music and dance (c) interest in arts, with galleries showing a fair amount of exposure of human form (d) boisterous parties where taboos are being broken. I think Musharraf can take a lot of credit for bringing a breath of fresh air in the suffocating lives of the people where everything `fun` was frowned upon.

mubakr#114
Thanks for the invite. Will do, insha-allah!

rahulmal#114
I was talking of people being good human beings regardless of whether or not they were being `good` muslims, hindus, christians, etc. Is a hindu widow who does not become a sati and even remarries a good hindu? Is a hindu who does not bow before a statue of a monkey god a good hindu? Is a hindu who refuses to drink `charnamrit` in a village temple thinking it might make him sick a good hindu? The same goes for muslims as well. There are muslims who believe that one should accept only the essence of quran and the essence of quran is just being a good human being. You can find them at chowk, too! Whether or not they are good muslims is for them and for other muslims to judge.

kaurasach:
I do not know if Banda Bahadur forcibly converted Muslims and if so, how many? But I can say that if he did, he could not find support for his action in the teachings of Granth Sahib or of any sikh guru; indeed the gurus went to the extent of taking up arms against forcible conversions. Sikhism, indeed, presents a beautiful example of a religion which grew without anyone seeking conversions; a significant part of the growth came from several parents ``donating`` their children to the panth without embracing the panth themselves. That they probably did not think that they were converting their children into another religion is a separate issue.

satyamvada:
I do agree that muslims in India have more constitutional rights than anywhere else, including several muslim countries. My problem is only with providing them with safety and security to live their lives in dignity and without fear.
I do agree that muslims need to do more to bridge the educational gap. But here, too, the political parties can help by not treating them as vote banks and try to modernise the madrassa education. Major political parties cannot escape responsibility for catering to the most obscurantist elements of the muslim community - even the BJP was interested in getting the endorsement of Bukhari to seek muslim votes.

DM ji,

``But I do make a clear distinction between Muslims and Islam. Muslims are human beings and there are good and bad Muslims, just as there are good and bad Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, etc.``

Does a good Muslim make a good human being? Is Usama a good Muslim, was Aurangzeb a good Muslim? Can they be categorized as good human beings? How about Zia? Is he a good Muslim, is he also a good human being? What about Akbar, amongst all Muslim kings of India he earned maximum points for good behaviour (probably Tipu Sultan will be the close second)!! Towards the end of his reign, he declared a new religion, `din-i-Elahi`. We all know that is blasphemous from Muslim point of view?

I think it is good to talk about this difference between Muslim people and Islam religion? But, is it not an attempt to beat the pseudo-secular trumpet, some people are so adept at? If a Muslim doesn`t believe in religion, he is an agnostic, who just happens to have an Arab name. So, isn`t making this distinction an attempt at obfuscation of the danger that Islam poses to other belief systems. BTW, I include Judaism and Christianity in this threat scenario because they share the principle of ``single truth`` with Islam. A nasty turn of events and sufficient strength would see Christians/Jews also killing heathens/Gentiles.