Congress wins Maharashtra; courtesy Raj Thackeray

In order to win elections in Maharashtra Congress deliberately ignored the idiotic outbursts of Raj Thackeray against Non-Maharashtra/North Indian people, rather tactically it supported his chauvinistic statements in order to damage Shiv Sena - BJP in state elections. Congress has won using the same formula of ¨Divide & Rule¨ of Britishers, but Nationalism has been weakened in the process and rowdy regionalism has become stronger. But who cares ? Let the India as a nation go to hell, Congress should keep on winning until the country reaches to the point of disintegration. That´s why Indians will remain slaves in one way or the other. BJP - Shiv Sena combine could not come up with the timely solution or were just helpless because of their own selfish & short sighted politics.

Happy Diwali

दीवाली की बहुत सारी शुभ कामनाएं !
¨असतो मा सद् गमय: तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय मृत्योर्मामृतं गमय¨
हे ईश्वर! मुझे असत्य से सत्य की ओर, अंधकार से प्रकाश की ओर एवं मृत्यु से अमरत्व की ओर ले चलो !

ਦੀਵਾਲੀ ਦੀ ਸਭ ਨੂੰ ਬਹੁਤ ਬਹੁਤ ਵਧਾਈ !
ਹੇ ਪਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਮੈਨੂ ਝੂਠ ਤੋਂ ਸਚ , ਅੰਧਕਾਰ ਤੋਂ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼ ਅਤੇ ਮੌਤ ਤੋਂ ਅਮਰਤਾ ਵਲ ਲੈ ਚਲੋ !

Asatomaa sad gamaya Tamasomaa jyotirgamaya Mrityormaa amritam gamaya
Oh God, Please lead us from Untruth to Truth, from Darkness to Light and from Death to Immortality!
Happiest & Heartiest Wishes on Deewali - The Festival of Lights !

Warm Regards & Best Wishes,

Dr. Rajesh K. Bhatia,
California, USA
Ph.-(Cell)-408-373-5579-(Cell)-917-720-5124

Please visit:---

http://akhandbharti.blogspot.com/
( For news & views & your comments )


President Obama's Diwali message!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuiAW_6XKVM

Jihad against Humanity

Jihad has been going on in the world ever since Islam was born in the seventh century but its latest manifestation has been, among other places, most notably in Palestine, Chechnya, and Kashmir. Even, in February 1998, when World Islamic Front issued a fatwa and a call for Jihad to "every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it", it did not arouse much interest in the general public. It took direct assault on 9/11 on the fundamental symbols of what America stands for that it created some curiosity. Today, Jihad is, no doubt, one of the most discussed terms in the world.

What is Jihad? What drives a man to commit such horrendous acts against humanity? What motivates Islamic terrorists? Why do they operate under the name of Jihad?

Dr. Eyad Sarraj, a Palestinian psychiatrist answers (Newsweek, April 8, 2002)

"This is the influence of the Koran, the most potent and powerful book for the past 14 centuries. God promised Muslims who sacrificed for Islam that they would not die. They will live on in paradise. Muslims hold to the promise literally."

How valid is this assertion?
Dictionary of Islam defines jihad as "a religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Quran and in the Traditions as a divine institution, enjoined specially for the purpose advancing Islam and repelling evils from Muslims."[i]

In an introductory note to an article "Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah" by Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, ex-Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia and of the Sacred Mosque of Mecca, Abdul Malik Mujahid, General Manager of Maktaba Dar-us-Salam, Saudi Arabia on the website (www.islamworld.net) writes:

"Jihad is regarded as the best thing, one can offer voluntarily. It is superior to non‑obligatory prayers, fasting, Zakat, Umra and Hajj as mentioned in the Qur'an and the Ahadith of the Prophet(pbuh). The benefits of Jihad are of great extent and large in scope, while its effects are far-reaching and wide-spreading as regards Islam and the Muslims."

Sheikh Abdullah, ex-Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia defines Jihad as:

"Praise be to Allah swt Who has ordained Al-Jihad (the holy fighting in Allah's Cause):

1. With the heart (intentions or feelings),

2. With the hand (weapons, etc.),

3. With the tongue (speeches, etc., in the Cause of Allah)

Allah has rewarded the one who performs it with lofty dwellings in the Gardens (of Paradise)." [ii]

Other contrary Views

Many non-Muslim modernists, as Maulana Wahiduddin also said in this discussion, in the West deny that it has anything to do with violence.

Many academic Muslims also dissociate Jihad with "Holy War". "In its primary sense it is an inner thing, within self, to rid it from debased actions or inclinations, and exercise constancy and perseverance in achieving a higher moral standard" - they claim. "Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions and certainly not against Christians and Jews as some media and political circles want it to be perceived. Islam does not fight other religions" - they emphasize.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based group, asserts that jihad "does not mean 'holy war.'" Instead, jihad is "a central and broad Islamic concept that includes the struggle to improve the quality of life in society, struggle in the battlefield for self-defense . . . or fighting against tyranny or oppression." CAIR even denies that Islam includes any concept of a "holy war."

Many other who go under the banner of modernists hold similar views on the nature of jihad.

How is one to conclude what Jihad really means in Islam?

Ironclad definition of anything to do with Islam and its practical manifestations can only be derived from what the basic scriptures of Islam have to say on any particular issue.

What are the basic scriptures of Islam and why are they so important?

The single most basic scripture of Islam is indeed the Qur'an. The next after the Qur'an are the traditions - the Sunnah -- of the Prophet -- also known as Ahadith. The Qur'an is compilation of the Revelations from Allah to Prophet Muhammad and the Sunnah is what Prophet Muhammad did or said. Of the traditions, the ones compiled by Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim are the most authentic.

Authenticity of Imam Bukhari's work can be judged from the fact that he is reported to have collected over 300,000 Hadiths -- traditions of the Prophet -- but "chose only approximately 7275 of which there is no doubt about their authenticity." [iii] Each Hadith comes with its line of transmission that leads directly to Prophet Muhammad or his companions.

Why are the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet so important to Muslims? Instead of giving my personal opinion let me say what Rafiq Zakaria, an eminent Islamic scholar and also known as modernist progressive secular Muslim has to say on this.

"To Muslims, the Quran is the creation of god. However, it is equally important to remember that there could have been no Quran without Muhammad. He is not only its transmitter but also the embodiment of its teachings... Muhammad and the Quran are inextricably intertwined." [iv]

"The Quran is, therefore, regarded by Muslims as immutable and unchangeable, not metaphorically but literally. This is a matter of faith for them, and reason can never deflect them from it." [v] (Italics mine) He went on to say.

After enumerating the five pillars of Islam, he echos the sentiments expressed above in another book and goes on to observe "it (the Quran) contains guidelines a Muslim must follow." [vi]

Maulana Mawdudi, a great Islamic scholar and thinker expresses similar views. Islam stands for complete faith in the prophet's teachings. It stands for complete obedience to the system of life shown to us by the prophet and any who ignores the medium of the prophet and claims to follow God directly is not a Muslim. [vii]

Maulana Wahiduddin has also expressed similar opinions.

Human reason or direct approach to God without the medium of the prophet makes one sinner, if not apostate from Islam. No freedom of slightest deviation is allowed. One has to follow the teachings of the Quran and of the Prophet.

If we want to understand why the Muslims carry out jihad, we have to understand what the Quran and the Sunnah have to say on this topic. The opinions of Islamic scholars and other commentators are not valid if they are not in conformity with the above.

What do the Quran and the Sunnah have to say on the subject of Jihad?

There is no chapter devoted exclusively to the subject of jihad in the Quran. The Ayats pertaining to jihad are spread throughout the Quran. If one were to sort them out and present them in a concise manner, one would, in all likelihood, be accused of quoting them out of context. But in each of the authentic Hadis - the Sunnah of the prophet -- there is a section dealing with the practice of jihad. So let us turn our attention to the Sunnah. On close scrutiny of the Sunnah as compiled in Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, apart from the traditions of the prophet, frequent reference is made to the Quran. So what is recorded in these two books is both, the Sunnah of the Prophet as well as the revelations from God. Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim have facilitated our work in informing us, in a concise form, what the concept of jihad in Islam is?

Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan of Islamic University, Medina Al- Munawwara, Saudi Arabia, the translator of Sahih Al-Bukhari, in the glossary of Arabic words translates Jihad as "Holy fighting in the cause of Allah or any other kind of effort to make Allah's word (Islam) superior which is regarded as one of the principles of Islam." [viii]

Jihad defined:

Let us first try to find out what is Jihad? We don't have to too far.

The section on Jihad starts with invocation to Allah and Chapter I opens quoting verses 9:111-112 of the Quran:

"Verily

Allah has purchased of the believers

Their lives and their properties;

For theirs (in return)

Is Paradise. They fight in His cause, so they

Kill (others) and are killed

It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him."[ix]

Allah has made a binding promise with His believers to kill in His cause and if they are killed they will get Paradise in return.

And again it repeats in chapter 2 "the best among the people is that believer who strives his utmost in Allah's cause with both his life and property and goes on to quote verses 61:10,11,12 . It says "it (fighting in Allah's cause) is a bargain that will save you from a grievous punishment..... He will forgive you, your sins and admit you into Gardens beneath which rivers flow, and to beautiful Mansions in gardens of Eternity." And calls it "The supreme achievement."

Indeed the promise of Gardens with Rivers and Mansions must have sounded very alluring in the harsh desert climate of Arabia. Evidently, it does even today.

The superiority of Jihad:

"A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the forenoon is better than the world and whatever is in it." Says Hadis 50 in chapter 5. [xi]

And "a place as small as a bow in Paradise is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets (i.e. all the world)." And continues, repeating, "A single endeavour in Allah's Cause is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets." [xii]

The superiority of martyrdom is so great that "nobody would wish to come back even if he were given the whole world and whatever in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah's cause.)" [xiii]

And what is there in Paradise? Houris. "And if a houri from paradise appeared to the people of the earth, she would fill the space between Heaven and the Earth with light and pleasant scent and her head cover is better than the world and whatever is in it." [xiv] Who would not like to die to be in company of such houris?

Obligations of a Believer to Jihad

What are the obligations of a Muslim of a general call to arms and what sort of Jihad and intentions are compulsory? Most people don't like to fight and Muslims are no exception to it. But what are they to do when Allah says:

"March forth, whether you are light (young, healthy and wealthy) or heavy (ill, old and poor)

And strive with your wealth and your lives

In the way of Allah; that is better for you

If you but knew. Had it been a near gain (booty in front of them)

And an easy journey they would have followed you,

But the distance (Tabuk expedition) was long for them and they would Swear by Allah (saying)

"If we only could, we would have surely have come out with you."

Allah reprimands:

"They destroy their own souls, and Allah knows

That they are liars." (9:41-42) [xv]

Allah continues His reprimand:

"O you who believe! What is the matter with you that when you are asked to march forth in the Way of Allah, (i.e. Jihad), you cling heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the hereafter? .... (the verse). If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allah is Able to do all things." (9:38-39) [xvi]

Is Jihad obligatory:

This is best explained by Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid:

"So at first "the fighting" was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory- ( 1 ) against them who start "the fighting" against you (Muslims)... (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah... as mentioned in SurahAI‑BaqaraSl (II), Al‑lmran (III) and Baraat (IX)... and other Suras (Chapters of the Qur'an).

Allah made "the fighting' (Jihad) obligatory for the Muslims and gave importance to the subject‑matter of Jihad in all the Suras (Chapters of the Qur'an) which were revealed (at Medina) as in Allah's Statement:

March forth whether you are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor), strive hard with your wealth and your lives in the Cause of Allah. This is better for you if you but knew. (V.9:41). [xvii]

Rewards of Jihad:

Where would one killed in Jihad go? The Muslim killed in Jihad would go to Paradise and "their's (i.e. those of the Pagan's) will go to Hell Fire. [xviii]

What are the special benefits of fighting in Allah's cause?

Whoever believes in Allah and His Messenger and lives the life of a good Muslim will rightfully go to Paradise, no matter if he fights in Allah's cause or not. But there is a special place for those who do. Paradise has hundred grades which Allah has reserved for Mujahidin. The distance between each grade is like the distance between the Heaven and the Earth. [xix]

And what will those who fight in Allah's cause get in Paradise?

Bat Ye'Or well known writer on Islam notes "the ideology of jihad was formulated by Muslim jurists and scholars, including such luminaries as Averroes and Ibn Khaldun, from the 8th century onward. For example, Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) stated, "..the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universality of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everyone to Islam either by persuasion or by force...".

Modernists views refuted:

As noted above, Council of American Islamic Relations asserts that Jihad is "struggle in the battlefield for self-defense . . . or fighting against tyranny or oppression" But Sahih Muslim, one of two most authentic traditions does not agree with it.

Self defense or oppression has nothing to do with the concept of Jihad. It quotes Prophet Muhammad saying:

"I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah."[xx]

Quoting Koran (9:39) "If you march not forth, I will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people and you cannot harm Me at all, and Allah is able to do all things.", Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Hamid of Sacred Mosque of Mecca (Saudi Arabia) writes "Allah disapproved of those who abandoned Jihad (i.e. they did not go for Jihad) and attributed to them hypocrisy and disease in their hearts, and threatened (all) those who remain behind from Jihad and sit at home with horrible punishment. He (Allah) accused them with the most ugly descriptions, rebuked them for their cowardice and spoke against them (about their weakness and their remaining behind).[xxi]

Had Jihad been just "striving" and "an inner thing, within self, to rid it from debased actions or inclinations" where was the need to "march forth"? Why would Allah accuse those who did not "march forth" of "cowardice", and "hypocrisy and disease in their hearts"?

To scholars of Islam the message of the Koran and Ahadith is clear.

It is true that not every Muslim is engaged in Jihad. It is true not only today; it was true during the time of Prophet Muhammad also. Those who did not were called hypocrites and their fidelity to Islam was in question.

It is evident from the above that Maulana Wahiduddin's contention that Jihad has "no relation to any sacred duty" and "it means to struggle, to strive. Jihad is to achieve a positive goal in life through peaceful means" have no foundation in Islamic scriptures.

And if Jihad, indeed, is "mental struggle against passion or internal struggle" - it would be welcome, I am sure, by all non-Muslims. What a non-Muslim is primarily interested in is Jihad that affects his (non-Muslim's) survival. However, there is no evidence in the core scriptures of Islam that Jihad is an internal struggle within the self.

In support of his contention, the Maulana quoted verse 25:52 saying: "The Quran says: ‘Do jihad with the help of the Quran'. As is the common theme of the Quran ‘to fight with the unbelievers', the verse quoted by the Maulana does not disappoint. It also says: "So do not follow the unbelievers, and strive against them a mighty striving with it." ‘It' might mean the Quran - the word Jihad does not occur in any of the three translations I checked but by defining jihad as peaceful struggle the Maulana has completely fooled a general unbeliever into believing that the Quran asks his followers to fight peacefully.

In the whole discussion Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and the moderator, both cut a sorry figure. The Maulana took them for an easy ride and neither challenged the Maulana and presented the true meaning of jihad. It is evident that Sri Sri Ravi Shankar has absolutely no knowledge of Islam or even of its basics

The whole exercise of equating the Gita and the Quran is disingenuous. The Gita and the Hinduism at large have no concept of jihad in the Quranic sense. The Kurukshetra war is not about jihad but about injustice which as the Maulana says does not exist in Islam - (In Islam, there is no war against injustice). In Islam, whatever Allah decrees is justice when it says: "God gives abundantly to whom He will and sparingly to whom it pleases." (13:26) In the Gita the basic theme is fight for righteousness - not for any god or religion or an individual while to the contrary the basic theme in the Quran is to fight for Allah against those who deny His Revelations.

In Kurukshatra war Sri Krishna did not exhort Arjuna to fight because Sri Krishna wanted it or for a God - or for even Arjuna's sake but for the justice. Against the injustice that had been done to the Pandavas. This step was taken after all other means to bring justice have been explored and exhausted.

Yes, like any other religious ideology, Islam also would like to improve the life of its followers, in its own way but that is nowhere called what is known as Jihad.

i Warraq, ibn. Why I am not a Muslim. New York, 1995, pp.12

ii Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 1, pp. xxiv

iii Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 1, pp.xvii

iv Zakaria, Rafiq, Muhammad and the Quran, Penguin Books, New York, 1991, pp. 3

v Zakaria, Rafiq, Muhammad and the Quran, Penguin Books, New York, 1991, pp. 4

vi Zakaria, Rafiq, The Struggle within Islam, Penguin Books, New York, 1988, pp. 304

vii Mawdudi, Abul A'la, Towards understanding Islam, Islamic Circle of North America, Montreal, 1986, pp. 61 (First published in Urdu in India in 1932)

viii Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 1, pp. lxxiv

ix Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol.4, pp. 34

x Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 36-37

xi Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 41

xii Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp 41

xiii Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 42

xiv Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 42

xv Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 58-59

xvi Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 59

xvii Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 1, pp. xxvi

xviii Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 55

xix Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 40

xx Sahih Muslim, Translated by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, New Delhi, 1994, vol. 1, pp.17

xxi Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp.xxx-xxxi

© Copyright


[i] Warraq, ibn. Why I am not a Muslim. New York, 1995, pp.12

[ii] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 1, pp. xxiv

[iii] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 1, pp.xvii

[iv] Zakaria, Rafiq, Muhammad and the Quran, Penguin Books, New York, 1991, pp. 3

[v] Zakaria, Rafiq, Muhammad and the Quran, Penguin Books, New York, 1991, pp. 4

[vi] Zakaria, Rafiq, The Struggle within Islam, Penguin Books, New York, 1988, pp. 304

[vii] Mawdudi, Abul A'la, Towards understanding Islam, Islamic Circle of North America, Montreal, 1986, pp. 61 (First published in Urdu in India in 1932)

[viii] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 1, pp. lxxiv

[ix] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol.4, pp. 34

[x] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 36-37

[xi] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 41



[xii] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp 41

[xiii] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 42

[xiv] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 42

[xv] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 58-59

[xvi] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 59

[xvii] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 1, pp. xxvi

[xviii] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 55

[xix] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 40

[xx] Sahih Muslim, Translated by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, New Delhi, 1994, vol. 1, pp.17

[xxi] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp.xxx-xxxi

GANDHI’S LOYALTY TO BRITISH CROWN

by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari

The January 5, 2009 edition of the renowned daily The Times of India
carried a press report titled “Gandhi donned army uniform for the
British”, that said, “It might seem surprising but it is that in the
year 1899, Mahatma Gandhi donned a uniform. This uniform belonged to a
voluntary ambulance unit, which he created” (article by J P Chaturvadi
published in the Sainik Samachar edition of October 9, 1977). The
article contained a rare picture of Gandhi sporting the British Army
uniform during the Anglo-Boer war that broke out in South Africa in
1899. It should be mentioned here that the Dutch had their own colony
in South Africa and in 1899, a clash of interest began between these
two colonialists which turned into a military confrontation in
December, 1899 and simply to please the British Government, Gandhi
created the said 1,100 strong Indian volunteer and the stretcher
bearer corps. During the war Gandhi was personally sympathetic to the
Dutch. But, he later on confessed that, to please the British he
sacrificed his conscience.



“The performance of his voluntary ambulance unit was appreciated by
all when the Anglo-Boer war ended in 1902, after the capture of
Transvaal. The commander-in-chief of the army mentioned the heroic
deeds performed by this ambulance unit, whose workers walked 20 to 25
miles a day to carry out voluntary duties to help the injured”, says
the article. After the victory in the war, British Government
presented a medal and a citation to Gandhi which he preserved with
great respect till his death. It should be mentioned here that Gandhi
strongly believed that the British Empire was for the welfare of the
entire world and he maintained this view till his death. Later, Gandhi
proudly recalled how he loyally served the British during the Boer War
and put his life in peril, particularly while his ambulance corps was
working at the battle fields of Colenso, Spion Kop and Vaalkranz.



While in South Africa, Gandhi did not miss a single
opportunity to please the British crown. Just after the Boer war,
Gandhi expressed his loyalty by sending felicitation to Queen Victoria
on her birthday. Queen Victoria died in January, 1901 and Gandhi sent
a condolence message to the Colonial Secretary in London, laid a
wreath on the pedestal of the Queen’s statue in Durban and distributed
picture of the Queen among the school children. Later on, when George-
V was coroneted as the king of England, Gandhi expressed his loyalty
by sending congratulatory telegram to England that read, “The Indian
residents of this country (i.e. South Africa) sent congratulatory
cablegrams on the occasion, thus declaring their loyalty”.



To please the British colonialists, Gandhi used to sing
National Anthem of England in public meetings though he could discover
violence in the following two lines of the song

“Scatter her enemies, and make them fall;

Confound their politics;

frustrate their knavish
tricks”.



When Gandhi lived in South Africa, a violent form of apartheid was in
vogue there. In some occasions, Gandhi himself was a victim of that
discrimination. The Negroes or the original inhabitants of South
Africa were divided in many tribes, e.g. the Zulus, the Swazis, the
Basutos and the Bechuanas. Among them, the tallest and the most
handsome were the Zulus. In February, 1906, the Zulus rose to revolt
against the Natal Government. The Zulu chief advised members of his
tribe non-payment of new tax imposed upon them. This resulted in
assassination of a sergeant and the clash that followed developed into
a rebellion.



Being a black himself, Gandhi should have sided with the
Zulus, but he supported the British. “His lip sympathy was for the
Zulus, but his head was with the British Empire”. The British
Government of Natal ruthlessly put down the rebellion. Though Gandhi
confessed that it was not a war but a man-hunt, he sided with the
British. Later on he said, “But I then believed that the British
Empire existed for the welfare of the world. A genuine sense of
loyalty prevented me from even wishing ill to the Empire”.



In 1909, Lord Ampthill visited South Africa and Gandhi was
out to please him by whatever means he could. The British statesmen
and rulers always wanted a man who condemned extremists and
revolutionists in India and Gandhi took the opportunity to please
Armphill by denouncing the revolutionaries of India and their policy.
Through several letters, Gandhi tried to convince him that his
doctrine of passive resistance or nonviolent Satyagraha has no
intention to hurt others – ‘a satyagrahi do not inflict sufferings on
others, but he invites it on himself’. Many believe that it was the
most important cause that inspired the British to bring Gandhi to
India, made him the topmost leader of Indian freedom movement and his
creed of Satyagraha was projected as the only mode of freedom struggle
in India.



At that time, British in India were terribly afraid of violent
freedom struggle launched by the patriots of Bengal, Maharastra and
Punjab and particularly in Bengal, where life of an Englishman was not
safe. So in 1911, the British Government on India had to shift its
capital from Calcutta to a safer place in New Delhi. But it has been
pointed out above that Gandhi, through his speeches and writings,
could have managed to expose that he was against any sort of violence
in Indian freedom movement. At that historic hour, people of this
country saw Sri Gopal Krishna Gokhale to sail to London and visit
South Africa on his return journey. He landed at Cape Town on October
22, 1912, and pressed Gandhi to return to India. While in London,
Gokhale pleaded to the Prime Minister Mr. Gladstone to repeal the so
called Black Act of South Africa, an unjust and discriminatory tax of
£ 3 imposed per Indian, for which Gandhi was then fighting. Mr.
Gladstone agreed just to glorify Gandhi and the followers of Gandhian
nonviolence usually highlight this fact as a great victory of Gandhi
and his creed.



After reaching South Africa, Gokhale, whom Gandhi revered as his
political guru, communicated this piece of news to Gandhi and said
that he (Gandhi) would have to return to India within a year
(according to the plan of their British master). Apart from his
unwavering loyalty to the British Empire, Gandhi was chosen by the
British as the new leader of India’s freedom struggle due his newly
invented doctrine of nonviolence. It was not difficult for the British
to understand that his harmless and nonviolent Satyagraha would pose
no threat to the British Empire.



Why Gopal Krishna Gokhale took so much interest in bringing Gandhi
back to India? The reader would recall that on 28 December 1885,
British government of India formed the Indian National Congress with
Allan Octavian Hume as the president and few other eminent, loyal and
English educated Indians like Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale,
Phirozeshah Mehta and so on. The sole intention was simply to get
prior information of what the Indians were thinking and going to do in
near future so that another Sepoy Mutiny might not recur. At the
beginning it was like an elite club dominated by the loyalists. But
later on, appearance of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai and Bepin
Bihari Pal (popularly known as Lal Bal Pal), the scenario changed
considerably. Lokamanya Tilak was first to embrace independence of
India from British rule as the national goal and it aroused the first
spurt of nationalism among the members of the Congress.



In 1906, the Congress was split into two.. The group led by Tilak and
supported by Lala Lajpat Rai and Bepin Bihari Pal was known as the
extremist group, while the loyalists were called the moderates.
Gradually, the extremists, with the help of mass support, gained
popularity and emerged as the dominant group while the moderates lost
their control over the Congress. So, when the British took Gokhale
into confidence and disclosed their plan to bring loyalist Gandhi to
India and make him the sole leader of Congress, Gokhale found to ray
of hope to regain their hegemony in the Congress. He readily supported
the intrigue and agreed to play a mediator between Gandhi and the
British.



So after one year and nine months he had met Gokhale, Gandhi, after
staying 21 years in South Africa, came to India, via London. He left
Cape Town by S.S. Kinfauns Castle on July 18, 1914, accompanied by his
wife Smt. Kasturva and his German friend Mr. Kalenbuch, and reached
London on August 6. He again sailed from London on December 19, 1914,
for India and landed Bombay on January 9, 1915. Thus he stayed nearly
5 months in England on his way back to India. After landing at the
Mumbai port, he, as the most important British loyalist, wrote a
letter to the Governor of Bombay Presidency expressing his promise
that he would always abide by his instructions. Many believe that he
went to London to receive the parting instruction from his British
master.



During his brief stay in London, Gandhi, the apostle of nonviolence,
deplored Madanlal Dhingra and other revolutionaries to please the
British, declared them anarchists and said, “Is killing honourable? Is
the dagger of an assassin a fit precursor of an honourable death?” He
also said that he wanted to purge India of the atmosphere of suspicion
on either side and there was no reason for anarchism in India.



The reader should recall the First World War began in Europe on 28
June 1914, and Gandhi, immediately after reaching India, started to
recruit Indian soldiers for the British army, simply to express his
loyalty to the British Empire. It is important to note that, Gandhi,
the apostle of nonviolence, who claimed to have discover a weapon on
nonviolence to end violence in the world, supported war and according
to his promise to the British master, recruited Indians to be
sacrificed in the violence of the war. He used to travel about 20
miles a day and addressed meetings at Nadiad, Kathlal, Karamsad,
Godhra, Jambusar, Vadlhal and other places for recruitment, under the
presidentship of the Commisionar Pratt. People used to ask him, “You
are a prophet of nonviolence, how can you ask us to take up arms? What
good has the British Government done for India to desrve our
cooperation?” But Gandhi had to keep mum. It was not possible for him
to say that he was doing all these things as the most loyal slave of
the British crown. It should be mentioned here that the staunch
followers of Gandhi, even today, refuse to acknowledge this glaring
example of hypocricy of Gandhi.



He then took up the other important task to please his British master
and that was disarming the revolutionaries of India. It has been said
earlier that at that time violent freedom struggle was going on in
Bengal, Punjab, Maharastra and elsewhere and the patriots of Bengal
were playing the leading role in this direction under the leadership
of Sri Aurobinda Ghosh, Barin Ghosh, Jatin Das, Surya Sen and others.
The British Government was terribly afraid of the revolutionaries of
Bengal. So gandhi visited Bengal to extuinguish the fire of violent
freedom struggle with his false creed of nonviolence.



Such an effort was also necessary to for Gandhi, most loyal
stooge of the British, to make India safe for the British Empire, when
it was in its difficult hour like World War-I. So, as the first step,
he went to Bengal and delivered the first blow against Indian
Revolutionaries at a meeting of Bengal youth. Later on, on April 24,
1915, in a meeting organized by the Madras Bar Association, Gandhi
proudly declared, “It gives me the greatest pleasure this evening at
this very great and important gathering to re-declare my loyalty to
the British Empire and my loyalty is based upon very selfish grounds.
As a passive resister I discovered that I could not have that free
scope which I had under the British Empire … and I discovered that
the British Empire has certain ideals with which I have fallen in
love.”

That time onward, Gandhi renewed his effort of deploring
the revolutionaries of this country to please the British. He asked
the youths of Bengal and of other provinces to give up violence. On
April 27, 1915, he asked the students of Madras to give up political
assassination, political dacoities and conquer the conquerors not by
shedding blood but by sheer force of spiritual predominance. He
deplored Khudiram, Madanlal Dhingra, condemned Savarkar for supporting
Dhingra and deplored other revolutionaries like Biplabi Rashbehari
Bose. It should be mentioned that even an Englishman W S Blunt praised
Dhinra and described him a great patriot (My Diary, Part-II, pp-288).
On the contrary, Gandhi condemned violence and said that it was an
evil path and the revolutionaries were anarchists. At that time,
Lokamanya Tilak was arrested in Mumbai because he wrote three articles
in the Kesari supporting Khudiram’s bomb explosion at Muzaffarpur, and
was sentenced on July 22, 1908, to six years’ transportation. Gandhi
deplored Tilak on the charge of inciting Indians against British rule.



Gandhi strongly believed that India’s connection with the British was
a blessing and used to say that “it would be a calamity to break that
connection between the British people and the people of India.” Hence
he used to say, “Satyagraha is not to hurt British and should never
hurt the British.” He also assured the British that he would never
adopt violent means against the British Empire and protection of
British Raj was necessary for the interest of Swaraj. It has been
mentioned earlier that Gandhi never fought for India’s freedom. On the
contrary, he used to say that there was no need to end British rule in
India and the Demand of INDEPENDENCE was DENIAL GOD. Later, he
himself confessed that he did not work for India’s independence.



It has been pointed out earlier that he reproached the leaders like
Subhash Chandra Bose and others because they were in favour of
demanding independence. He also blamed C F Andrews for demanding
complete independence. It is needless to say that all such utterances
of Gandhi made the British colonialists extremely pleased. This made
Sir Samuel Hoare, the Viscount of Templewood to comment that Gandhi
was one of the best friends of the British. But later on in 1930,
Gandhi was compelled to support the independence proposal simply to
gain control over the Congress. Many believe that while in London on
his way back to India, he promised that he will always inform the
Viceroy in advance what he is going to do as his next step and take
prior permission from him. There is no doubt that he kept the word of
his British master up to his last breath.

Is Pakistan the hub of World Terrorism?

Many world leaders now feel that Pakistan is the hub of most of the world's most dangerous terrorism. Look at the views below:

1. The United States State Department has said that Pakistan in the "epicentre of terrorism" and called upon the world to take action against terror from Pakistani soil.

2. Former CIA director Michael Hayden has warned that every major terrorist threat confronting the world has ties to Pakistan. He says that in Pakistan Al Qaeda had established safe haven and was training a “bench of skilled operatives.”

4. According to Time Magazine, which reported of a new parallel state called Talibanistan which has sprung up in Pakistan and Afghanistan: "the tribal region of Pakistan, a rugged no-man's-land that forms the country's border with Afghanistan--and that is rapidly becoming home base for a new generation of potential terrorists. Fueled by zealotry and hardened by war, young religious extremists have overrun scores of towns and villages in the border areas, with the intention of imposing their strict interpretation of Islam on a population unable to fight back. Like the Taliban in the late 1990s in Afghanistan, the jihadists are believed to be providing leaders of al-Qaeda with the protection they need to regroup and train new operatives. U.S. intelligence officials think that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, may have found refuge in these environs."


5. Referring to more than 50 terror outfits are active in Pakistan, US President Barack Obama said Islamist extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan posed a grave threat that his new administration would tackle as a single problem under a wider strategy.

6. A spokesman for India’s ruling Congress party on Saturday called on the international community to consider declaring Pakistan a terrorist state in the wake of the release of Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan's nuclear scientist who leaked nuclear secrets to rogue countries like Iran. He is still a free man even though he helped export nuclear weapons to terrorists.
.
7. The Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan has links with the terrorist oufits based in the country, and the US is making an allout effort to ensure that these links are cut-off completely, US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Richard Boucher has said. Boucher said that it is evident that the terror groups involved in the 26/11 Mumbai attack were operating from the Pakistani soil, and his country wanted to eliminate this menace.

8. According to Der Speigel: For years a kind of death industry has been taking hold in Pakistan's tribal areas. There are hundreds of Koranic schools which could better be described as cadet schools for Islamists. Boys as young as five are sent here by their impoverished parents. The idea is to condition or brainwash them. The goal is jihad. As young men these warriors are given military training which underscores their so-called spiritual training.

9. According to Wikepedia: Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, has often been accused of playing a role in major terrorist attacks across the world including the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States,[16][17][18] terrorism in Kashmir,[19][20][21] Mumbai Train Bombings,[22] London Bombings,[23] Indian Parliament Attack,[24] Varnasi bombings,[25] Hyderabad bombings[26][27] The ISI is also accused of supporting Taliban forces[28] and recruiting and training mujahideen[28][29] to fight in Afghanistan[30][31] and Kashmir[31]

10. Wikipedia continues: Pakistan is also said to be a haven for terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda,[32] Lashkar-e-Omar, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Sipah-e-Sahaba. Pakistan is accused of sheltering and training the Taliban in operations "which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban's virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and on several occasions apparently directly providing combat support," as quoted by the Human Rights Watch.[33]

US the wrong place to go to talk about Pak terror

By Dr. Jay Dubashi

The Chinese fooled even Nehru, for, he called all such incursions cartographic aggressions-Nehru was a master of words, for didn’t he spend time in Eton and Cambridge, where such words are coined?-meaning they were no problems at all and not worth fighting over. The Chinese didn’t think so. They may have invented paper two thousand years ago, but they have more faith in their armies than that in their fancy paperwork.

Our friend, Home Minister P Chidambaram is back from the US after reporting to his bosses over there that Pakistan is not behaving properly and India is deeply dissatisfied with progress of ‘investigations" into 26/11 supposed to be conducted by Pakistan. Read that sentence again and you will start laughing. Firstly, it was the Home Minister who was reporting to Washington, not the Foreign Minister. Now, why should a home minister, or any minister for that matter, report to anyone outside the country? Are we a colony of the United States? Do we have to report to them every now and then as the Viceroy used to do to 10 Downing Street from time-to-time when we were indeed a colony?

Then comes the bit about investigations. Who says that Pakistan is conducting investigations? The Pakistan government’s writ does not run beyond a few miles outside Islamabad. How long since we had any news about Asif Ali Zardari, who is supposed to be Pakistan’s President? Is he still alive, maybe reading that book about Jinnah by his favourite author, or has he been bumped, as most Pakistani presidents are? And if he is out of action, who exactly has taken his place?

The fact is that if Chidambaram was in the US to complain about Pakistan, he went to the wrong place. Pakistan, the little bit that still exists on paper, and America are allies, and have been allies ever since the birth of that country. The two allies collaborate closely on everything from nuclear energy to missiles, and while Pakistan pretends to fight the terrorists, America pretends to believe it is really doing so. America has had bases in Pakistan for the last 50 years and will continue to do so till kingdom come. And currently it provides a big base for their forces in Afghanistan.

In fact, Barack Obama has realised that he has lost the fight in Afghanistan and the American people are tired of sending their young men to fight all over the world from where they return home in caskets. They do not know why they are fighting in Afghanistan just as they did not know why they were fighting in Vietnam. The Vietnam war was over long before it was officially declared closed and so is the Afghan war. Actually, almost the whole of Afghanistan is now under the Taliban, except a few bits around Kabul and it is a matter of time before that falls too.

When Chidambaram goes to Washington to complain against Pakistan, he will be complaining to the wrong party, for, as I said, Pakistan is an ally of America, and nothing happens in Pakistan without the knowledge of the United States. I am quite sure Washington has a copy of the list of complaints he has taken with him. America is not a neutral party in the affair; it is very much involved in everything that is happening in Pakistan. If Chidambaram does not know this, he has a great deal to learn, just as he had a great deal to learn about finance when he became Finance Minister. If Chidambaram is so keen on the Washington trip, let him have one, but let him not pretend that he is doing anything useful. The Americans in the State Department, or to whoever he will be reporting, will be laughing behind his back and saying under their breath what a foolish lot Indians are, as our minister goes from office to office asking for a hearing.

Then there is another colleague of Chidambaram’s in the cabinet, the so-called Minister of External Affairs, so-called because we rarely hear about him, and who, one would have thought, would be doing what Chidambaram proposes to do. But SM Krishna, that is what his name is in case you do not know, seems to be the least informed Foreign Minister in this part of the world. He told reporters in Delhi that the India-China border is the most peaceful around India and our relations with China have never been friendlier.

You can say that again. Krishna feels that China’s incursions into India-and this is what our air force has said in so many words-are no incursions at all and in any case, there is a committee of experts to look into such problems. "I don’t think", said the man who is more interested in his wardrobe than in the goings-on in Ladakh, or wherever it is that the Chinese are massing, and called for his tailor to stitch another band-gala for his next outing in, where else, Venezuela.

If small-time committees could tackle problems of incursions, you would not need armies and navies at all. All wars start when nations intrude, often with their armies, into other nations’ backyards. This is how the Second World War started. Right up to the start of the war, Neville Chamberlain was saying that everything was under control, that all committees, to tackle border disputes were in place, and everybody could switch off lights and go to sleep. Incidentally, Chamberlain was fond of natty suits too, except that they were of the wrong cut, just like Krishna’s suits!

Actually it was Chamberlain, like Krishna, who was going to sleep, while Hitler was cooking up maps and alerting his cronies. Krishna is basically a babu; he thinks that all problems can be solved if you have proper files with proper notings and nothing can go wrong as long as the files are there. And that is precisely what Krishna is saying. He says that there are proper border dispute committees with a joint secretary, a deputy secretary and maybe a couple of peons, and as long as they have not reported anything, everything is fine. And if the Chinese are really intent on creating trouble, they will first inform the committee-in triplicate-and then we shall see what to do.

The Chinese fooled even Nehru, for, he called all such incursions cartographic aggressions-Nehru was a master of words, for didn’t he spend time in Eton and Cambridge, where such words are coined?-meaning they were no problems at all and not worth fighting over. The Chinese didn’t think so. They may have invented paper two thousand years ago, but they have more faith in their armies than that in their fancy paperwork. They came over the Himalayas, firing from all sides, and in no time at all, had Nehru running for cover, looking for help. And there was no trace of the border committees and, of course, Nehru’s faithful but useless servant, Krishna Menon.

We have another Krishna who operated from Maurya Sheraton at a cost of Rs one lakh per day, and he is going about mumbling the same nonsense. Surely, the least Manmohan Singh can do is get another foreign minister and send this Maurya Krishna back to wherever he came from!

Has Gandhi's Agenda Been Defeated?.......Public Platform 2 !

HAVE YOUR SAY

>> If Muslims can indeed change and become liberal, come back to us when that incredible event has happened.

Well, all human beings, at a basic level are fundamentally the same, regardless of race, religion, caste etc. There are conditions/circumstances, individual initiatives, personal moral decisions/choices etc that are different. I believe that any person regardless of race/religion/caste/class etc can be good, develop themselves, become competent/intelligent etc.

>> Anyone can be excused on the basis of your principle that they can change in the future....Even Hitler could have, given enough time. We are not interested in that. What matters is dealing with the Muslim goondas and Hitlers of today.

I never said that Muslim goondas should not be dealt with. All I said is that no person of any religion/caste/race/class etc can be assume to be a Goonda solely on the grounds of religion/caste/race/class etc. A very simple point. I do not know why some people are jumping up and down on this.

>> If a fellow breaks into your house and comes to kill you you won't defend yourself. You will just say: "I am sure you will become a decent chap in the future. You can change."

No. I will do all I can to discharge my duty of defending my family and myself, even if it needs use of force.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Oct 04, 2009 11:53 PM
179

Lalit:

I concur with your conjectures on R, VC3, K and faruqi.
v.seshadri
chennai, india
Oct 04, 2009 11:45 PM
178

dr s

i suspect reddy, chutterjee of being faruki clones.

they are not hindus, despite haveing hindu names.

both are fanatic muslims.

i doubt that they live in india.

faruki is a mysterious character- kumar, chutterjee
and kumar are working togather with him.

some may be based in usa- use a safe indian forum for their feelings of hate.their strident defence of pakistan is a bit strange.perhaps thats natural for
some indian muslims.
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 04, 2009 11:36 PM
177

STORM:>>"But perhaps Gandhi was fortunate that he had a opponent like British"

right. the brits broke down the islamic suppression on the hindus, especially the intellectual B-types. english schools, started for producing more clerks for their empire, ended up producing lawyers and philosophers of the same competance as the britts themselves, bec english is only gr-grand-kid of sans! new hindu india talked the brits out of india, after britts' own weakening after the world-war strains. urdu-ite moslems could only watch the process. non-partition might have brought moslems also into the engl-educ mode, but the departing brits wreaked vengeance on india by separating the moslems into separate state. preferred absorption of moslems into england has worsened their own situation!.

post-bangla war, there could have been convergence, in the subcontinent, but oil-price rise made pak-ISI an agent of saudi-caliphate only. the rise of china in association with the catho-papacy has strengthened the conversionist forces of the mao-naxals on the east, also.

Sonia being forced to choose man-mohan as her man has only been a god-forced blessing-favour for india's good. We have only to count on God for further progress on the right lines, also, in spite of the bad sort of polits that are getting elected each time.
grandmas praying in temples is really running india ahead!.

>>"Had he been fought against a enemy like increasingly assertive and authoritarian state like China or stone age, tribal forces like Taliban or Saudi Arabia, I seriously doubt he could have achieved the same goal with his non-violence weapon".

yes, satyaaagraha was satya-naarayaNa-aagraha with Gandhi. circumstances and God-bless brought success for him and freedom for india. perhaps, india has been paying the price for not forcing the leadership on gandhi himself, of undivided india, instead of the division between nehru and jinnah. painful hindsight, I suppose.

while europe and americas are developing under truely entreprenuerial capitalism, correcting some marketing mistakes also, as they occur, the princely-family-capitalism of the saudis mainly oil-based, the communist-party-capitalism of the chinese riding on the poverty of excluded/exploited three-fourth of the country and the military-ISI-terrorist-capitalism of pakisthan based on saudi money, routed thro usa, and chinese back-up for them, all three, will all find themselves weakening slowly, in the next decade, with the world going seriously for urgent eco-economics, given the warnings by the increasing frequency of storms and quakes.

In modern 'system theory', the 'state eqn' of a system, elec, mech, or economic, really defines the rate of change of state as a linear or nonlinear fn of the state-vector and the time. the 'being' and the 'becoming' are both important variables determining the future state-trajectory. a moderate upward rate of growth on sound savings and widespread wealth-disposals are good points on which india can count for steady and stable progress, despite swirling waters. the saudi-pak-chinese oppo are flying high over shaky grounds. their hopes for destroying india may be only day-dreams. They may end up seeking india's help in the end. Americans are right in making the nucl-power deal with india.
v.seshadri
chennai, india
Oct 04, 2009 11:24 PM
176

reddy

the pope is not a sanghi or a nazi- his opinion counts.

1 pakistani,s complain bitterly about not getting a visa-
2 neither are they welcome in other countries.
3 saudi arabia cuts of their heads for crimes of all kinds

read the dawn of today and read what pakistani writers
think of their country- its down hill-

himachal, uttarkhand,ladakh,sikkim, are the most peaceful states in india, because the people are mostly
hindus.

m.j.akbar writes that muslims are a sick limb in india.

cowasjee a famous pakistani journalist writes.

95 percent are ignorant, violent and bigoted. there is no chance of a democracy here.

exmuslims in america are frequently on tv criticiseing
islam and muslims.

read any western paper and read the news about india and pakistan- india has some good news. all
news from pakistan is bad news.

some muslims in india will be suspect because of their own behaviour and also that of the pakitanis.you caN
read mfr,s views.

muslims have expelled hindus from kashmir, it is legit if hindus did the same to them in an another state.
this is fair-

your asking for me to be tried for treason is hillarious. if any thing you are more liable to be
picked up, and shot,lieing flat on your back, stareing at the sky. you just dont know your position in society, here or else where.

despite all india is a largely hindu country, and has
a ancient history. you better learn to respect this or head for pakistan- this type of bragging under a assumed name will not last for ever.

terrorists and fanatics like you get picked up all over the world. dont push your luck.
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 04, 2009 10:48 PM
175

the dalit sikhs were never part of the khalistan movement and the recent fights among dera and conservative sikhs show how the latest religion is also unable to contain/control divisions based on birth
ganapathi
chennai, India
Oct 04, 2009 10:46 PM
174

gayathri---"the pope himself has stated that islam was a intolerant religion,"

Yup ... that should seal the fate of Islam. Your
simplistic views and even more simplistic conclusions
are worth examining from an academic point of view.
The human brain in some individuals dont evolve after a point.


--"pakistani,s now at the highest level now find it
nearly impossible to get a visa for britain.. "

And this fact is enough to prove what a dastardly
nation Pakistan has become.



--"despite problems they are a unified nation, not troubled as the devided nation of hindusthan. "

But isnt this what you wanted all along ? A divided
Hindustan with Hindu majority States (mostly in the
North) having their own country ? These are your
views and ofcourse you will deny it. You are an
anti-national. You should be arrested and tried for
treason. So why do you insist on hounding Indian
Muslims who love India enough to live here, despite ll the hatred spewed by bigotted Hindu fuckheads ?


--"we keep on debateing with the likes of faruki and
kumar. it matters little how sensible and realistic
our comments are."

If you had half the erudition, education and articulation of Kumar or Anwar
this forum would be a far more interesting place to inhabit. Instead, its fun
to drop by here and skewer fundamentalist dickwads.
Reddy
Bangalore, India
Oct 04, 2009 10:42 PM
173

there r thousand differences between a tamilian muslim and a kashmiri muslim and even a moplah muslim.the same with hindus where in south u marry ur uncle/uncles daughter while in north its blasphemy. rice eating makes a person weak according to a jat but the thambi thinks the opposite.its very rare for a bohra muslim to marry a tamilian muslim and the same with hindus.i have moved with kashmiri muslims and casteism is rampant among them. my friend was from a family of barbers and he says that his family is looked down upon by the rajput and syed muslims.the tribal gujjars (the girl who shot a militant few days back belongs to them)are never considered muslims by the pak establishment and muslims.the muslims in leh ladakh are very different(physically and ideologically) and are not part of any militant group.since dausa was declared a tribal seat the gujjars put up a kashmiri gujjar muslim as candidate and he secured almost 3 lakh votes after a meena independent candidate and bjp/congress pushed to 3rd and fourth.
ganapathi
chennai, India
Oct 04, 2009 10:29 PM
172

sanjay khan is the father in law of hrithik.
no group is monolithic.most of the kurds genuinely hate iraqi sunni and shias of iran too hate the sunnis.the mohajirs are illtreated in pakistan and their leader openly says that partition was a mistake(reply to people who say that no one in pak feels partition is bad).most of the marathis hate biharis and the same with kannadigas and tamilians.very few kannadigas feel tamilnadu deserves cauvery water and viceversa with tamils.its comical to paint hindus as aggreived and muslims aggressors.jats care two hoots for laws and dont hesitate to kill their own daughters and sisters if they fall in love with fellow hindus and the same with many hindu communities.what is the feeling of a rajput about a paswan/kurmi/mahar.the hatred a garhwali as for nepali(though gorkhas have stayed in dehradun for centuries)has to be seen to be beleived.the hatred for yadav and obcs led to the birth of new state uttarkhand.people in vidharbha resent maratha domination and want separate statehood.the hatred between devar dalits,vanniar dalits etc in tamilnadu r well known.
ganapathi
chennai, India
Oct 04, 2009 09:46 PM
171

muslim for reform

yours is a masterly account of the situation of india.

gandhi as the father of the nation tried his very best to keep the joint hindu muslim nation togather. after
all the muslims were hindu converts, and he believed
that their religion should not effect their liveing togather.

nehru too tried to wipe out the differences, but he
was a master at decieveing himself.

he was wrong about the reality of islam which was in resurgance in india, and later on all over the world
" they are like us only" is the childish and naive response of people like rajinder puri, vinod mehta, and kuldip nayar". they are not.they keep on saying so and we will not believe them.

muslim communities all over the world have devided the
countries they shared with others. serbia, lebenon,
cyprus have separated after bloody conflicts- muslims
have mishandled ,brutalised their minorities, and finally expelled them.

the indian media has decieved the people of their country . they never ever shows such bloody events on tv screens, or writes about them in newspapers. the bloody genocide in darfur was ignored and hidden from indian viewers even though the head of the united nations mission was a indian.they ignored it even after american blacks like condoleeza rice, jesse jackson drew attention to this
tragedy.

when i wrote about this ,faruki accused me of writeing this solely for the purpose of discredeting muslims,
and not because i was moved by the pitiable situation
of the poor,blacks in darfur.ssema mustafa, naqvi both indian muslims travelled to khartoum and dismissed the whole situation as a minor misunderstanding- 300,000
people killed, and 2.5 million driven away from their homes, and that was their reaction.

no one can build a multireligious society with people who are so biased and bigoted. the amazeing is that whilst they regard themselves as a foreign nation,
tied by blood bonds to the arab ummah, they feel that
the hindu majority should turn a blind eye to all this and help them in all possible ways.

even protests by hindus at this situation are unacceptable.they who are themselves the most bigoted
and fanatics accuse the others of this.this is true not only of india but across the globe.

the fight today world wide ,is between resurgent and
agressive islam and the others. the west is well aware of this and is takeing action to counter this.


they may give aid and speak in honeyed tones to the muslims,but only a fool will fail to understand their anger and frustrations.

people like me do not want confrontation with muslims
or anyone at all. the world is faceing serious problems
and it is not just stupid but criminal for people
on both sides to spend huge amounts on arms.

in fact i am dead against india spending money on fighter aircraft and submarines. i would much rather
spend this on good roads and buses, for cycle paths,
and pavements in cities.

why is pakistan forceing india to do so. why have they
armed themselves to the teeth with money borrowed
and begged from the hated americans.

this if anything shows a total lack of commonsense,
and honour. with regret i note that this has given
a free chit for corrupt govts in india to buy arms,
when it should be provideing welfare to its peoples.

i would like an answer to mfr,s mail and mine from the secularists.. they lack both commonsense ,decency
and honour.
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 04, 2009 09:42 PM
170

"" Jinnah ate pork, and married a non-Muslim. So what? ""

And interestingly when his own daughter expressed her desire to marry a non-Muslim a Parsi Jinnah opposed and disowned her before telling her that there are millions of Muslim boys in India and she could choose any one of them.
Storm
Jaipur, India
Oct 04, 2009 09:26 PM
169

GHAI, GANAPATHY:

Spare us this sentimental hogwash about how Muslims are marrying Hindus and all the same etc.

It is NOT true that Muslims are the same.

Some of them may chew pork or marry non-Muslims, but the inflexible orthodoxy of the majority, their fanatical contempt for Hindus and adulation of arabs, remains.

Jinnah ate pork, and married a non-Muslim. So what?

Muslims are Indian in appearance but Arabs in spirit.

Simple.

I respect them. Their arabism is not an excuse for hating them. I know they are dangerously intolerant, but the answer is to keep a creful watch on them and be ready for trouble, not to attack them without excuse as the Hindu goondas of Gujarat did.

But above all, no illusions about Muslims. They are what they are: Arabs in India, with a huge grievance against Hindus.

We must be just to them and take good care of ourselves.
Iqbal Z
Pune, India
Oct 04, 2009 09:08 PM
168

Ganapathy Babu, good remark.
Shubho Bijoya to you and Boudi and Eid Mubarak.
dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Oct 04, 2009 08:55 PM
167

Ganpathy

Sanjay Khan an actor and the maker of Serials Tippu Sultan,Jai Hanuman etc has got a Doctorate in Hindu Philosphy from the Banaras Hindu University .
a k ghai
mumbai, India
Oct 04, 2009 08:49 PM
166

PS to first post:

Old timers like Vinod Mehta,PURI,Kuldip Nayar and other media barons very well know the role played by Indira and Congress in spreading communal divide and using Muslims as an asset in Elections but they all either ignore it or downplay it and only blame right wing hardliner Hindus.Their partisian treatment of Gujrat and Modi is an example .The credit to create the Modi's image larger than life goes to these media Mughals.

It may be Ishrat or Sabrudin or Best Bakery ladies the media blitz unleashed and readily lapped by the Seculars always end up strengthening Modi's position.

With enmies like these who needs friends.
a k ghai
mumbai, India
Oct 04, 2009 08:45 PM
165

mr ghai

we keep on debateing with the likes of faruki and
kumar. it matters little how sensible and realistic
our comments are. they will always raise an objection.
thanks for the comedy gayathri devi
i have relatives/friends from muslims,christians,hindus of many castes and can answer u. there is not much of a difference when it comes to basic human qualities of selfishness/possesiveness/caste religion supremacy etc.whether he is son of a poor seller(irfan pathan) or nawab of pataudi they fall in love with people of other religions.most of the muslim actresses marry hindus and salman khan sister is married to agnihotri brother married to christian and the list goes on. most of the airhostesses from muslim community marry nonmuslims and in co ed colleges like madras christian college,medical colleges,govt engg colleges the number of muslims marrying nonmuslims is no way different from hindus.the philanthropic nature of people is irrespective of religions and there is no increased number in hindus compared to others.
ganapathi
chennai, India
Oct 04, 2009 08:35 PM
164

Kumar:
"Gandhi had human and Indian interests in mind."

That is a good joke. EVer read what Gandhi had to say about blacks?
Ganesan
Nj, USA
Oct 04, 2009 08:32 PM
163

MFR

You have raised many important issues .Your post deserves detailed and considered response.

I will submit in detail on the following :

1.Gandhi did what he could to cool passions of 1946-47 .But his role was over.Time was not on his side.India was entering a new era where Gandhian philosophy had become outdated.World was rapidly changing . Not Gandhian Charkha but the Industrialisation was the need of the hour.Devasted World after the War was rebuilding itself and it was great chance for India to join them.

Nehru understood it but did the basic mistake of antagonising West and tied India to NAM and Communist Block.He should have also tried to carry along West.

India at that time needed wealth and technology form the West also.

Another mistake Nehru did was to support Arabs in their fight with West and Israel.As a good politiician he should have tried to be nonpartisian and friend of all.This would have hastenend the development and rapid industralisation of India.Unfortunately Nehru and Menon policies' kept India weded to poverty for another four and half decades after the Independence.

India was compelled to mortgage its Gold finally.

2. But Nehru had a great christma and was held in awe by the Indians .He was able to subdue Hindu Muslim communalism.Had Lal Bhadur Shashtri lived longer I feel he could have carried forward on communal problem.


2. But Indira was different .She had her own compulsions imposed by the Congress oldies.To retain her power she played every card available to her including communal one .If you were then old enough during her regime you will know what I say.It is during her rule that Communalism reared up again .India was again plunged into Hindu Muslim riots.
The role of Congress itself was and is still quite dubious on this count.It was during her rule that hardliner Hinduism surfaced with no efforts by he rto control it.

Poverty tightened its grip on us .I think first time after Independence deaths due to poverty and hunger re-apperared in India.

(continued Part Two}
a k ghai
mumbai, India
Oct 04, 2009 08:28 PM
162

Puri's article on Gandhi seems to be ignited a fiery debate here.

Despite with all his shortcomings, undoubtedly Gandhi was one of great leader who achieved a great goal for his people.

But perhaps Gandhi was fortunate that he had a opponent like British. Had he been fought against a enemy like increasingly assertive and authoritarian state like China or stone age, tribal forces like Taliban or Saudi Arabia, I seriously doubt he could have achieved the same goal with his non-violence weapon.

In another sense Indians were lucky that British replaced the Islamic dominance in sub continent.

By the way why a Gandhi, Martin Luther or Nelson Mandela did not born in Islam in its 1400 years history, is a interesting thing to notice.
Storm
Jaipur, India
Oct 04, 2009 06:48 PM
161

I_Z:>>"let India develop her Hindu identity"

very difficult, bec hindusthan only operates as many casti-sthans and lingui-sthans, nowadays. besides, there is a virulent pakisthan inside india itself, bigger than pakisthan and bangla-sthan, also. besides, there is a church-isthan growing very rapidly in india under sonia and her crypto-chr raj-ministers and CMs, 'raj'-named-polits in other parties also!, raj thackeray the latest!..

Kailasapati and Guruvayurappan have their hands full really, if they really want to restore hindusthaana as the old 'aarya-varta sapta-sindhu in jambo-dveepa'. it might only happen only if people, in general, here and elsewhere in the world, realize that all devout religs are only aspects of sanaatana-dharma, at the spiritual level. paapist conv, mullaist terror should come down. excessive traditionalism, superioritism among high-caste-minded hindus should also come down.

Time-lord Siva = allah will surely enforce it, I think , in due course of time. if alaka ice-cone lands down as araba-deSa, araabia, r->l [hara = alla]. k-> b, p? partly the alps also? then, kuran = puran, Siva-purana only, perhaps misheard by ravan-nabhi from narada-Gabriel, further muddied by bakaasura [abu baker] types, may be. God alone knows the truth, and also the eventual solution mode, for the problem. may His will be done!
v.seshadri
chennai, india
Oct 04, 2009 06:46 PM
160

Rajinder Puri nurses a long standing fantasy for the re-unification of the nations of our subcontinent. He has written about the same in his earlier postings. Whatever his intentions may be for promoting this idea, there is alas no basis for the same.

The issue of the irreconciliable nationalities of Hindus and Muslims obtaining in India were amply clear to BR Ambedkar even before the Partition who has prophetically described the same in his seminal work 'Pakistan, or the Partition of India'. His clear understanding of the Hindu-Muslim issue is amply vindicated by the events which have happened since then and all the doubts and misgivings are mostly cleared. Puri has only to read this book to clear his understanding of the matter.

The role and positions of Gandhi and Nehru in India’s partition are another story. BR Ambedkar has written his treatise from an academic or a social scientist’s point of view without any vested interest. A social scientist or academic tries to explain the nature of things as he is not charged with any other social or political responsibility in the matter. In contrast, Gandhi and Nehru were political leaders who had a vested interest in the outcome and were in charge of giving birth and presiding over a newly freed (mostly Hindu) nation. Even if they understood the situation fully well, they could not be expected to acknowledge it openly as they were aware of the explosiveness of the matter and the enduring damage to the social fabric and the much needed peace and harmony that such an action would cause. Gandhi tried to do his bit by ignoring and to some extent even condoning the excesses of the communalist Muslims. Nehru, on his part proceeded to whitewash the historical accounts of our ancient land by rewriting history in his ‘Discovery of India’ wherein he reinterpreted the bitter truths of the communal interaction of Hindus and Muslims to make them seem less severe and tolerable and thereby attempting to forge an honourable and a face saving basis for Hindu-Muslim coexistence. The difference between Gandhi on one hand and Nehru/ Patel on the other as evaluated by Puri in the article is superlative, that of a mere degree. Politics is defined as the art of the possible. A greater politician is that whose attempts for greater and more improbable possibilities. Nehru and Patel felt that they reached the limits of possibility in the matter of partition earlier and they accepted fait-accompli of Partition. Gandhi, being the greater politician and social leader, felt it was still possible for the two communities to coexist somehow and did not give up the idea till his death. It is just like the case of the sons of a joint family quarreling to be separated. The sons and others of the family understand the inevitability of separation much earlier, while the parents (or in this case, the father of the nation) tries until the last to maintain the unity of the family.

Thus there is no point for the author to dream of such fantasies. The issue of separate Muslim nationhood is not an event caused by the relatively small time political wrangling between Nehru and Jinnah or the Muslim League and the Congress but is rooted in the centuries old history of Islam and the Muslim ummah and it will remain that way as long as the rigidity and unalterability of the present Islamic dogma remain in place.
Muslim for Reform
Nashik, India
Oct 04, 2009 06:46 PM
159

Rajinder Puri nurses a long standing fantasy for the re-unification of the nations of our subcontinent. He has written about the same in his earlier postings. Whatever his intentions may be for promoting this idea, there is alas no basis for the same.

The issue of the irreconciliable nationalities of Hindus and Muslims obtaining in India were amply clear to BR Ambedkar even before the Partition who has prophetically described the same in his seminal work 'Pakistan, or the Partition of India'. His clear understanding of the Hindu-Muslim issue is amply vindicated by the events which have happened since then and all the doubts and misgivings are mostly cleared. Puri has only to read this book to clear his understanding of the matter.

The role and positions of Gandhi and Nehru in India’s partition are another story. BR Ambedkar has written his treatise from an academic or a social scientist’s point of view without any vested interest. A social scientist or academic tries to explain the nature of things as he is not charged with any other social or political responsibility in the matter. In contrast, Gandhi and Nehru were political leaders who had a vested interest in the outcome and were in charge of giving birth and presiding over a newly freed (mostly Hindu) nation. Even if they understood the situation fully well, they could not be expected to acknowledge it openly as they were aware of the explosiveness of the matter and the enduring damage to the social fabric and the much needed peace and harmony that such an action would cause. Gandhi tried to do his bit by ignoring and to some extent even condoning the excesses of the communalist Muslims. Nehru, on his part proceeded to whitewash the historical accounts of our ancient land by rewriting history in his ‘Discovery of India’ wherein he reinterpreted the bitter truths of the communal interaction of Hindus and Muslims to make them seem less severe and tolerable and thereby attempting to forge an honourable and a face saving basis for Hindu-Muslim coexistence. The difference between Gandhi on one hand and Nehru/ Patel on the other as evaluated by Puri in the article is superlative, that of a mere degree. Politics is defined as the art of the possible. A greater politician is that whose attempts for greater and more improbable possibilities. Nehru and Patel felt that they reached the limits of possibility in the matter of partition earlier and they accepted fait-accompli of Partition. Gandhi, being the greater politician and social leader, felt it was still possible for the two communities to coexist somehow and did not give up the idea till his death. It is just like the case of the sons of a joint family quarreling to be separated. The sons and others of the family understand the inevitability of separation much earlier, while the parents (or in this case, the father of the nation) tries until the last to maintain the unity of the family.

Thus there is no point for the author to dream of such fantasies. The issue of separate Muslim nationhood is not an event caused by the relatively small time political wrangling between Nehru and Jinnah or the Muslim League and the Congress but is rooted in the centuries old history of Islam and the Muslim ummah and it will remain that way as long as the rigidity and unalterability of the present Islamic dogma remain in place.
Muslim for Reform
Nashik, India
Oct 04, 2009 06:37 PM
158

iqbal z

you are absolutely right.

i read pakistani new papers, and never have i read
any one who regrets the partition,

bangladeshis despite the genocide in 1971 are more
friendly towards pakistan then india.

i remember on the ali brothers saying to gandhi-
mr gandhi i know you are a nice person, but i still
prefer a muslim thief to you. i am obliged to do so
because of my religion.

i can not fathom why nonmuslims are so facinated by
muslims, despite being rejected by them.

these fake secularists should visit pakistan for say
a few months- maybe this will cure them of their
fascination.

this said many pakistani,s can be very hospitable to
visitors, but this does not change the over all picture. it is a pity but its true.i stand for friendly relations with pakistan, trade and tourism.
i think the indian govt is ready for this, but it has
not happened-the pakistani,s are not keen on this.
i do not read pakistani,s suggesting such friendly
relations with india or the west.

i am willing to be friendly with pakistani,s as well.
and sincere if they are nice people, but i would not
have many expectations from the country at large.
we have had 60 years of bad relations- we have fought several wars,faced terrorism, faced lies and denials.
this shows how futile it is to have any illusions
about pakistani,s.
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 04, 2009 06:16 PM
157

kumar

no european secular democratic country is in agreement with you. i live in europe and most danes have a very
negative views of islam and muslims.

so do britts. after the july 2005 bombings tony blair
said- the rules of the game have changed.even the elite pakistani,s can not get a visa to visit britain.

british readers express their anger in books,papers
and tv- you are fast asleep with your eyes,and ears
closed.

and stop your lies. i support equal rights for all
includeing muslims. it is muslims who do not give equal
rights to nonmuslims.christians are getting killed
in pakistan. you maintain a calm silence.

dawn has a article about the pope asking zardari to respect christians-

you need a mental check-so obsessed are you that you can not understand what your opponents think.

you could read "aatish taseers book stranger in history. you seem to be simply ignorant of the world
outside.
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 04, 2009 05:17 PM
156

Gayatri:

The simple truth is, when Islam invaded India, it formed a new nationality. That eventually became the Muslim nations of Pakistan and Bangladesh. India remained a Hindu nation.

In the future, Pakistan and Bangladesh will become even more alienated from Hinduism and India will emphasise Hinduism ever more.

I have met many Pakistanis and Bangladeshis and discussed the Partition. Not one of them had even the remotest desire to have their countries reunite with India. They would have considered that a truly mad idea. They are happy to celebrate their strictly Islamic identity and to identify themselves with the Arabs and Iranians.

The fact that many of them like Hindi movies is nothing to the point: so do many Arabs, and even Russians.

Some extremist Pakistanis do want to reunite with India - but these are the guys who want to make the whole Subcontinent a Califate of Islam. The desire has nothing in the least friendly to Hindus about it.

So please put an end to this stale, outdated fantasy. The Pakistanis and the Bangladeshis havbe gone from the Hindus, and are NEVER comong back.

Let them develop their Islamic identity in peace, and let India develop her Hindu identity.

Everybody happy now?
Iqbal Z
Pune, India
Oct 04, 2009 05:15 PM
155

KUMAR

'criticism/condemnation of violent extremists' who are they ?
a k ghai
mumbai, India
Oct 04, 2009 05:06 PM
154

KUMAR

If a fellow breaks into your house and comes to kill you you won't defend yourself. You will just say: "I am sure you will become a decent chap in the future. You can change."

Good luck.
Iqbal Z
Pune, India
Oct 04, 2009 05:03 PM
153

KUMAR

If Muslims can indeed change and become liberal, come back to us when that incredible event has happened.

Until then we shall treat them as what they demonstrably are today: utterly bigotted and intolerant and violent.

Anyone can be excused on the basis of your principle that they can change in the future....Even Hitler could have, given enough time. We are not interested in that. What matters is dealing with the Muslim goondas and Hitlers of today.
Iqbal Z
Pune, India
Oct 04, 2009 04:58 PM
152

Gayatri Devi,

>> i note that you do nothing useful- a real loser. whine whine whine-

You are the one whining at the criticism/condemnation of violent extremists The question is, why are you so scared about the idea of human rights/justice/freedom? If not, what exactly is the problem you have? Why dont you quote one line from me and tell what you disagree with?
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Oct 04, 2009 04:49 PM
151

Gayatri Devi,

>> when facts are against them …

The disagreement is not so much on the facts, but on the view and vision for future of humanity/world.

>> however these same people make no such demands from other muslim countries like saudi arabia or the gulf states

Saudi Arabia is not the context of the discussion. But you are free to raise your objections on Saudi Arabia.

>> you are liveing in your own bubble, and i wonder whether its because you are house bound, or just have a closed mind

You should ask the question to all the secular democratic constitutions/countries of the world (including India), as they are all in agreement with me, in letter and spirit.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Oct 04, 2009 04:46 PM
150

kumar

i have never opposed equal rights for all inhabitants
of a country-i am especially a supporter of womens
right. i do not have a religion, caste or class.

i am just a ordinary danish citizen liveing with very nice danish neighbours.

once years ago i invited a muslim activist to bring some of his friends for lunch,and i would share my
experiences with them .

he did not accept. he spent all his ime writeing critical letters about danish society. he was widely
despised,and left the country. everyone who knew him were happy.

i think you are completely thick headed.you remind me of him. constant whineing in bangalore, which i understand is a fun city.

i note that you do nothing useful- a real loser.

whine whine whine-
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 04, 2009 04:25 PM
149

kumar

i dont dream of ghettoes-

i note their existence-you also wrote about a muslim
locality close to you- do you visit them- do you have
many muslim,hindu friends.

start reading dawn- its journalists have doubts about islamic societies and their own.

you are liveing in your own bubble, and i wonder whether its because you are house bound, or just have
a closed mind.

you may have dreams of the society you want. it is not
shared by most westerners.dont presume to tell them
how to arrange their societies-

you need to make a trip to some other countries, meet
your dream friends- get a check on reality.
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 04, 2009 04:25 PM
148

"As if money is required only for war purposes! "

Like Pakistanies are taking Billions from USA as Aid for developement and utilise it to purchase Arms to fight on Indian Front.
a k ghai
mumbai, India
Oct 04, 2009 04:18 PM
147

AK Ghai,

>> Indian intersts were served by financing Pakistan's Kashmir War !!!

As if money is required only for war purposes! But I was referring to is pre-partition India. Gandhi lived almost all his life in that India
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Oct 04, 2009 04:13 PM
146

Gayatri Devi,

>> why do people insist on multicultural societies in liberal countries.what good does it to society in general. nothing at all.

That depends on your view of humanity and the future destiny for humanity/world that you like to see. I like to see a future of humanity where various races, castes, religions etc live in dignity with their rights/justice/freedom asserted and with people socially-educationally-economically empowered and developed. You dream of a world of ghettos, divided by race, religion, caste, class etc. That’s the basic difference.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Oct 04, 2009 04:03 PM
145

Lalit ji

Thanks .
a k ghai
mumbai, India
Oct 04, 2009 03:59 PM
144

"Gandhi had human and Indian interests in mind. "

Indian intersts were served by financing Pakistan's Kashmir War !!!
a k ghai
mumbai, India
Oct 04, 2009 03:57 PM
143

Gayatri Devi,

>> these moral exhortations by kumar appear absolutely hypocritical- what is his purpose other then place blame on sanghis-as a proxy for the hindu community.

Thats like saying that the war on terror is a war on Muslims/Islam.

>> i detest such people

You detest the idea of asserting the right/justice/freedom of people. If not, you will have no problem with anything that I say.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Oct 04, 2009 03:49 PM
142

mr ghai

we keep on debateing with the likes of faruki and
kumar. it matters little how sensible and realistic
our comments are. they will always raise an objection.

when facts are against them, they turn to moral
exhortations- allways to hindus,never to the other side. this is followed by abuse,insults.

moreover they reject the views of exmuslims who at great danger to themselves have taken a stand against islam. anyone however respected in society is instantly damned if he or she raise views against these brain dead fake secularists. when he pope said something critical,faruki immediately branded him as a ex nazi.

this is what nehru and patel must have realised.there
was no percentage in pursueing the dream of an indian
nation when 90 percent of muslims supported the 2 nation theory, and fought for a separate state useing
enormous violence and killings.

people like faruki thrive or survive in forums like
this. they also submit their views in the international
media as well. their views are totally opposed to the britts, for eg in papers like the "independent" or the "telegraph" - their mindset is absolutely opposed
to the views of the host nations-

such a situation is not good. why do people insist on multicultural societies in liberal countries.what
good does it to society in general. nothing at all.

however it does provide a fig leaf for muslim immigrants, in that it provides a near god like
reason for their presence in other societies.

the host nations must accept these people, or face charges of racism,bigotry.

however these same people make no such demands from other muslim countries like saudi arabia or the gulf states-you can read about this yourself.

best regards
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 04, 2009 03:12 PM
141

faruki

you have chosen to live your political life in the protected environment of this forum, despite the difference you have with all except -

kumar,reddy and chatterjee.

birds of the same feather flock togather.

do you write in any other forum. i would like to know,
because i am through corresponding with you.

we have different views, but you have always got some
fake moral values which you want your adverseries to accept. very wisely you do not demand these from
muslims who think otherwise-

i have come to the conclusion that islam and muslims
are in a cul de sac. you should discuss issues
which concern you,by yourselves. as you admit muslims
are sagging behind by a hundred years-

a sick limb as m.j.akbar says and you accept this view
as being true..

you can relate to the modern world,exchange views with
it only after you progressed from your present status.
it will take decades. obama has accepted this just
after a few months of his presidency. coexistence with
muslim countries, but no desire of being close to them.
obama had a muslim father.

it would be pointless for saudis, sudanese, libyans,
pakistani,s to sit and debate with people from american, western or eastern societies. your values
are far removed. all discources will be pointless.

the debates in this forum have proved this. we do not
share common values- dr s positively hates some of you.
people like mr ghai,sandy and myself feel that we are better off liveing apart as pakistan and india.

jinnah was right. pakistani,s are now free of debateing
issues like liberalism and secularism. they have a firm
anchor in islam, the koran, hadiths . despite problems
they are a unified nation, not troubled as the devided
nation of hindusthan.

we in india are in a state like that of hamlet the
prince of denmark- allways faceing problems of a very
confused,disturbed multireligious society, where each
community wants to emphasis its own culture.

frankly i have realised that when push come to shove
most minority community have their own religious
and civil interests to defend. i do not feel that they
are fellow indians in a real sense.

the same goes for most muslim immigrants- after several generations they still remain
pakistani,s or bangladeshi,s in britain,or in denmark.

you reject reality because it is the inconvenient truth. you are obsessed with promoteing a multireligious society in india-not in pakistan-
because it serves the interests of muslims. i do not
read you sincerely advanceing the well fare of nonmuslims in pakistan,or even that of muslim women
in india.

conclusion- ours is a futile debate-like the myth
of sysiphus.

at times when i am in delhi i have thought of opening a feeding centre where poor people could get a really good lunch a few times a month- a centre where children of all communities could take a bath, wind down, watch tv or do some thing they like.

these moral exhortations by kumar appear absolutely hypocritical- what is his purpose other then place
blame on sanghis-as a proxy for the hindu community.

what good have people like him done for any one,except
for this absurd moral lectureing.

i detest such people- and to hell if you call me a bigot.
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 04, 2009 02:31 PM
140

"Putting it as "Muslims interests" and "Hindu interests" reflects your mindset and not of Gandhi"

Start reading recent History of India .There are n- numbers of books available .Ganhi had many many qualities and some weaknesses too.
a k ghai
mumbai, India
Oct 04, 2009 02:30 PM
139

Gayatri Devi,

>> unwillingness to accept essential difference between various communities

It is you who have to accept that while there are differences among various nations, races, castes etc as the 'current situation', it need to be permanent state of affairs in the future (or the past for that matter - the church in medieval times felt that it is ok to kill people for opposing religion, but they changed, didn’t they. Others can change and have changed likewise).

>> muslims in pakistan are convinced that the 2 nation theory is right

So did many Hindus, including many in this forum. But that was a solution for a certain prevailing situation. But the fact remains that both Indians and Pakistanis are human beings. Even two brothers born of the same mother may separate, due to some circumstances etc.

>> that is why they have rejected their hindu past

The fact that a person is a Muslim and chose to be a Muslim means that they do not believe in some hindu beliefs. What is your point?

>> the pope himself has stated that islam was a intolerant religion, and entirely faith based and irrational.

Just as many people consider Christianity likewise. That is a different issue/topic altogether. I may say that Christianity is irrational and yet assert the human rights/justice/freedom of all people including Christians.

>> people like me accept the way things are. that is my starting point.

I also see the things the way they are, but see what needs to be corrected/improved

>> i believe very firmly that people may not be good or bad, but that they are different.

I believe that many people are good and some fall short more than others. But everyone can change/improve/develop etc.


>> jinnah and gandhi presented two views, and muslims chose those made by jinnah. now i ask you- is this reality or bigotry to say so.

It is a reality to say that most Muslims chose Jinnah. But it is bigotry to say that Muslims (or for that matter people of any race, caste etc) cannot change and will for ever remain backward, bad etc. It would be even worse to violate the rights/justice/dignity etc of innocents based on a theory that people of a particular religion, race etc are different/inferior etc.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Oct 04, 2009 02:15 PM
138

Gatatri/Lalit,

>> unwillingness to accept essential difference between various communities.

If such difference is the only ware you have to peddle, you may as well fold and spend your time doing something more useful. You have become a repetitious bore.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Oct 04, 2009 02:06 PM
137

reddy

i agree with you on prostitution.

regarding killing of gandhi- he was killed by a hindu under very troubled times. i think he had come to the end of his role. his dream of one india,and one nation
was shattered,

regarding killings of leaders,note the numbers of
pakistani who had a bad ending-

liaqat ali khan- killed
iskander mirza exiled
ayub khan- dismissed in a coup
mujib ur rehman imprisoned
butto hanged
zia ul haq ??
nawaz sharif imprisoned for years
benazir bhutto killed in a terror attack
musharff faceing impeachment
zardari ???

its a fine record.

that of afghanistan is not better.

sadamm hussain used to shoot people in meetings.
he killed both soninlaws--

is that enough.
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 04, 2009 01:59 PM
136

AK Ghai,

>> Watching Muslims interests was the single point agenda of Gandhi .He had no sympathies for Hindu refugees

Gandhi had human and Indian interests in mind. Putting it as "Muslims interests" and "Hindu interests" reflects your mindset and not of Gandhi. He appealed to all people to renounce communal violence/hatred etc and to show love/respect to fellow human beings. No where did he say that it is ok for one side to kill the other side etc (as is made to be by some people, including you)

>> If not Godse some other angred person would have done the deed.

True, there is no shortage of communal and religious violent extremists, for whom the word ‘humanity’ means nothing and the word is not there in their dictionary.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Oct 04, 2009 01:49 PM
135

faruki and kumar

smart retorts are just smart retorts, refecting an
unwillingness to accept essential difference between
various communities.

that is what v.s.naipaul and the young writer aatish
taseer have said in their books, and what mr mohammed
ali jinnah said, as justification for the partition
of india. muslims in pakistan are convinced that the
2 nation theory is right, and that is why they have
rejected their hindu past, and dream of being a central
asian nation. on the other hand it is secular hindu,s , who despite knowing this view, and after being hated and attacked by pakistani terrorists keep on dreaming of one people and one nation.

i have the views of some pakistani journalists and they affirm my views to be correct. what more can one present as evidence.

talking of bigotry ,you are the bigots,who have chosen a convenient stand ,and are now denying this inconvenient truth. the pope himself has stated that islam was a intolerant religion, and entirely
faith based and irrational. we see this in the affairs
of pakistan and afghanistan etc.

india can not change its situation- its various communities even if they dislike each other can not
find alternatives. however the truth being that those muslims in india who want to live by different laws would be better off liveing on their own.

the essentials of a good working multicultural society
is that most people have common values which unite,and few which devide. european nations after decades of
liveing togather with foreigners have decided. they
find big differences between themselves and muslim immigrants.

haveing realised this most countries have ministeries
of integration with a special task of educateing
muslim immigrants. however they have now also made laws
to stop further muslim immigration.

pakistani,s now at the highest level now find it nearly
impossible to get a visa for britain.. the visa office for pakistani,s has been moved to dubai-

i believe very firmly that people may not be good or bad, but that they are different. this is the way muslim countries feel. most of them have from algeria
to bangladesh expelled nonmuslims, and made life very
difficult for the others.to deny this essential truth
is bigotry.

after all nehru and gandhi accepted this in 1947.however they decided to keep pretending that muslims and hindus were one people. this was not true in 1947, and its not true for pakistani,s today.

to deny truth and reality is not being liberal ,but just stupid. people like me accept the way things are.
that is my starting point.

accept the world as it is, and not what you want it to be.

europeans being educated and rational have accepted the reality on the ground. they experimented with
multiculturalism, but are now shocked at the way things
have gone wrong. the liberal politicians are getting voted out of power, and societies are becomeing more devided, with all communities getting to be more intolerant.

instead of demanding me to change my mind by all kinds
of moral blackmail, exchange your views with pakistani,s.

ask them what they think of secular societies,and changeing of pakistan from a islamic state to a secular
state. muslims want secular states when in a minority.
they want islamic state when they are a majority.

that was naipauls message, which the people in the
nobel prize committee acknowledged and gave him a nobel prize for literature.since then he was knighted, and so was salman rushdie.

lets cool it- jinnah and gandhi never agreed. jinnah
won and was named qaid e azam. gandhi was shot by a
angry hindu for not standing up for his community.

this is the simple truth. jinnah and gandhi presented
two views, and muslims chose those made by jinnah.

now i ask you- is this reality or bigotry to say so.

anyway i am out of this debate. one can not convince
peoples whose mind is made up, and who have no intention of changeing it. the two sopranos should now
ask pakistani,s what they think of multicultural
societies, and are they now prepared to take back the millions of nonmuslims they have mishandled and
expelled.

the records of all bjp states is far better then that of pakistan and afghanistan.
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 04, 2009 12:54 PM
134

Gayatri Devi,

>> you pretend that pakistani,s and indians are similr in character

I believe that all people in the world regardless of race, nationality, caste etc have similar basic human character, but the current conditions are different groups, based on various conditions/circumstances are different. Those who are backward or on the wrong side etc can be corrected and their conditions improved.

>> i dont suppose you have read v.s.naipauls "anongst the believers" aatish taseer "stranger to history", books by ayan hirsi ali,views of Tasleema Nasreen, Salman Rushdie.

I am familiar with their views. None of them would support violation of rights/justice of innocent people merely based on race, caste, religion etc. In fact they are speaking out against it, as see it happening in Islamic society, much of which I agree.

>> You have gone around in your usual way, by not answering a direct question. I asked you to name one country you admire, and there was no answer.

I told you what kind of society I admire. Such societies exist in many countries. It is true that the societies I mentioned are more in some countries than other, but that is just the 'current condition' and those lagging behind can improve as well. I admire almost all secular democratic nations for their repeated assertion of human rights/justice/freedom in principle (even though they sometimes fail in actual implementation etc).

>> you are scared to comment on the mindset of many muslims

Tell which mindset I am scared to comment on. In reply to Mr. Badhukwala’s article, I asked him to look at issues beyond 2002 riots and to contemplate on why it is so easy to provoke a "muslim mob" into violence.

>> what exactly is your motive in hideing from ground realities.

I am not hiding from any realities. The reality that you are ignorant of is that all human beings have rights and are entitled for justice/freedom etc. And all people of all races, castes, nationalities can develop, improve etc. And your problem is also that you cannot stand the rightful condemnation of religious violence, if that is directed towards hindu extremist violence.

>> i end my exchange of views with you

You are free to do so anytime.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Oct 04, 2009 12:41 PM
133

gayathri-devi aka benito to Kumar---"I noted this from the people you admire and the books you read. "

Kumar ... i suggest you read frederick forsythe and mario puzo, and make attempts to admire benito mussolini and hitler. This will level the playing field and you will finally arrive on the high intellectual plateau inhabited by the resident sex-change guru.
Reddy
Bangalore, India
Oct 04, 2009 12:33 PM
132

--"If not Godse some other angred person would have done the deed."

I agree ... judging by the deranged hindutva fundamentalists who infest these forums, it was only a question of time before Hindu fundamentalism would have 'done the deed'. And these very fundamentalist fuckheads have the gall to use the concept of Hindu tolerance as a protective sheath ... like a condom.
Reddy
Bangalore, India
Oct 04, 2009 11:01 AM
131

Gayatri,

>> are muslims in india liberal...

Some are liberal, some conservative, and some are as bigotted as you.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Oct 04, 2009 10:46 AM
130

Seshadri,

>>>>"Your glee could hardly be hidden"
>> please stop posting retort replies.

These are the truths, not retorts. You did write several post applauding the deaths of YSR and Karkare. Now perhaps you do not want that mentioned!

>> perhaps, the mk-rajesh-types might ask for caste-cum-ethnicity-based reservations, on nobel awards also.
then the Bs of south india may be kept out for another century.

The question was whether generations of enriched environments and higher expectations conduce to achievements, or is it due to inherited genes.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Oct 04, 2009 10:40 AM
129

"et Godse was not apprehended. Was he manipulated as, "

Gandhi had angered many Hindus specially Refugees from the West Pakistan and East Pakistan . Watching Muslims interests was the single point agenda of Gandhi .He had no sympathies for Hindu refugees who had lost their livelihood,homes,property,businesses and their near and dear ones were butchered by the Paki hordes.

If not Godse some other angred person would have done the deed.
a k ghai
mumbai, India
Oct 04, 2009 10:23 AM
128

The first and foremost attribute of leadership is clarity of vision, followed by a roadmap and execution plan to make that vision reality.The angry protests of gandhi fans aside,the fact is that gandhi's vision or lack of it was based on an utopian thought - so far fetched from reality and impractical that it is not worth the paper it was written on.gandhi worshippers would do well to set aside some time to read his ramblings - boggles the mind that such a chap is actually venerated.Present day India is far from perfect and can even be called a functional anarchy - however we are certainly better off compared to what might have been had m.k.gandhi perchance taken over the leadership reins of India.
Shiv Adiseshan
Chennai, India
Oct 04, 2009 10:18 AM
127

>>>>Either you are completely ignorant or pretend to be one . I noted this from the people you admire and the books you read>>>

>>>>Hinduism is flexible and dynamic. Hinduism is not under trial or under watch, or a global ideological threat>>>>


The Brahmin-Baniya temples were not only far from us, but the Gods sitting and sleeping in those temples were basically set against us. There were Brahmin-Baniya houses within our villages, but the very same houses built up a culture inimical to ours. The Brahmin-Baniyas walked over the corpses of our culture. They were the gluttons while our parents were the poor starving people - producing everything for the others comfort. Their children were the most unskilled gluttons, whereas our children were the contributors to the national economy itself. Their notion of life was unworthy of life itself, but they repeatedly told our parents that we were the most useless people. Having gone through all these stages of life, having acquired the education that enabled us to see a wider world, when we reflect upon our childhood and its processes it is nothing but anger and anguish which keeps burning in our hearts.


( the above are excerpts from the bestseller book, translated in many languages ' Why I Am Not A Hindu ' by Dr kancha Ilaiah. His latest article on ' Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen and his book ' The Idea Of Justice ' has appeared in to-day's ' Asian Age ' http://www.asianage....-art-of-justice.aspx
B Prabhu
Mangalore, India
Oct 04, 2009 10:11 AM
126

Many of the postings I see are plain drivel. Somebody is accusing faruki and someone Gayatri devi. By this bullshit are they contributing to the discussion other than wasting precious space of Outlook?

Siddharth postings do hit the nail on the head and make us think what has gone wrong with our nation subjected to disinformation. The Congress in pursuit of political hegemony has stabbed the people of all religious denomination in the back and nobody seems wiser. The same herd mentality prevails even today when mass voting for Congress takes place even though many of the Congressmen are traitors.

Mahatma Gandhi scored a self-goal by bowing to Jinnah’s demands. Some argue that Partition was inevitable. Even if a partition had come later it would not have been so gory as to leave millions dead on both sides. Gandhi is fully responsible for this macabre event as he happened to be the towering personality during the crucial period and using his charismatic hold on the masses could have stood firm against the British fifth columnists who were instigating Jinnah. When Partition became inevitable quick-to-fasting Gandhi should have truthfully fasted till he died. This was the only way he could have redeemed himself. Yet he chose to live and witness the holocaust. There is something weird about Gandhi when it comes to preserving unity and integrity of India.
shakeel
hyderabad, India
Oct 04, 2009 08:36 AM
125

Gayatri/Lalit,

>> i live as a liberal, or try and do so.

A hate pracharak cannot be a liberal. Someone exhibiting open religious intolerance cannot be a liberal.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Oct 04, 2009 06:43 AM
124

KUMAR(to Gayatri Devi),

Its a well known fact that what ever you call a Muslim as whether a liberal or secular all that glory vanishes when it comes to their religion where he gets instantly transformed into a fanatic or a jihadi sympathiser.Islam even otherwise forbids the concepts of Democracy,secularism,religious tolerance and liberalism considering these as tools used by the Christian west or non Muslim world against it.I agree with you that irrespective of one's religion a common man strives to earn his daily bread in the first place.One can be religious but there is no need to be a fanatic.To look at every one as equal then every one has to look at others as equal.But in our country the political system runs on caste and religious divide.
Pakistan for another ten thousand years will have bitter relationship with India.A country born on a 'anti India' hate plank can never be a true and honest friend.Its the arrogant Pakistan that waged three unsuccessful wars on India and is now engaged in a proxy war.If the Pakistanis were at all friendly you would not have found the entire country getting tense during a India Pakistan cricket match.The whole world is now aware what Pakistanis are up to.A rogue,undemocratic and a country that lies to the world community.Its appropriately branded as a jihadi factory.There are enough people in this country enjoying the fruits of democracy here but having their souls in a an enemy country like Pakistan.Have you included these people too in your friendly lot.
you seems to enjoy living in utopia.The world has been made a unsafe place to live by Pakistanis who are engaged in gathering crude nukes and even selling them to notorious countries.Every society has its own plusses and minuses.Your purpose of living is understood and one has to live with such noble deeds but not necessarily alone on internet forums but in actual life.
Your list of those role models gives me a simple hint that you are a communist minded or a left oriented person.No big deal.Its your democratic right to choose.
Show me one Muslim country which is truly and honestly democratic,secular and liberal.some were on the path like Iraq and Turkey but your jihadi brothers would not want that to happen.The Muslim countries are definitely protecting the rights /justice/welfare but of their own or the Muslims alone.why Saudi Arabia is so religiously intolerant to the non Muslims.The Muslim countries will never go the way how the west has gone.Islam fears more the freedom means lesser its hold will be on its followers.
vijay
Bangalore, India
Oct 04, 2009 03:20 AM
123

Gayatri:

I am beginning to realise who you are.
Iqbal Z
Pune, India
Oct 04, 2009 02:54 AM
122

kumar

you have not a clue about the real world, where there
are ongoing conflicts leading to violence,hate and killings. there is hardly one european or other
country where muslims live peacefully with nonmuslims.


you pretend that pakistani,s and indians are similr in
character and this exposes your complete ignorance.

i dont suppose you have read v.s.naipauls "anongst the
believers" aatish taseer "stranger to history",
books by ayan hirsi ali,views of Tasleema Nasreen,
Salman Rushdie.

Either you are completely ignorant or pretend to be
one . I noted this from the people you admire and the books you read.

Your sanctimnious pretensions are meant to ignore,or
deny reality.

You have gone around in your usual way, by not answering a direct question. I asked you to name one country you admire, and there was no answer.just
your usual sermoneising.this is the usual hypocracy
of people like you.

you are scared to comment on the mindset of many muslims. if they were just hard working people,they
would not be killing or burning your fellow christians.
there would be no taliban, laskar e toiba.there would
not be terror attacks all over the world, and subsequent denials by the pakistani govt.

i end my exchange of views with you. you are dishonest, naive and stupid.what exactly is your motive
in hideing from ground realities.
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 04, 2009 01:51 AM
121

Gayatri Devi,

>> are muslims in india liberal-in which way

Most people of all religions just go on with lives in a normal way - working for a living, marrying, having children, trying to improve their standard of living, trying to get better conditions for their children than what they themselves had etc and abide the law of the land. There would be many people in all religions who don’t know much about religion or care to know deeply. There would be many who may or may not have a deep personal faith, but look at people at a human level and work for rights/dignity of all people etc. Thus applies to people of all religions including the Muslims in India.

>> are pakistani,s liberal- are they friendlt towards india- i mean the large majority.

The 'friendliness' of Pakistanis to India would be probably more or less a mirror image of 'friendliness' of Indians towards Pakistan. You will find all kinds of people. There will be people who are more bitter than others and some more friendly than others etc.

>> which are the societies yoú admire across the world,and where you would like to live.

The society that I admire the most are the ones that respect the rights/justice/freedom of people regardless of race, religion, caste etc. Many parts of secular democratic nations fall in that category (some more than others, but they should at least be open and make progress). The question of where I like to live is different question. I like to live where my presence would bring maximum benefit to the society. That is where I derive my sense of purpose etc.

>> who are your favourite writers, thinkers,

There are many, like Abraham Lincoln, Ambedkar, Gandhi, Nehru, Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, Raja Rammohan Roy, Nelson Mandela etc

>> is the world more open to open cultural societies now then before- if not why not.
>> is the world becomeing more tolerant-

Some people are, some people are not. The more important question is, which is the right way to go.

>> will muslim countries be more like western countries some time in the future.

The Muslim countries need not be 'like western countries' as you put it. As long as they can assert and protect the rights/justice/freedom/progress/welfare of all citizens regardless of race/religion etc, they are fine. I think they will and they have to - they don’t have a choice.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Oct 04, 2009 01:22 AM
120

Gayatri Devi,

>> dont believe that all peoples,races,nations are equal in intellect-if they were then the world would expeience uniform development.

That is not the question. The question is not whether all races/castes/nations etc are equally intelligent/developed etc as things stand today. Everyone agrees that there are reasons/circumstances/conditions etc due to which some races/castes/nations etc have had more development or have a larger percentage of people showing greater intellect etc. But the point is that people of races/castes can be intellectually, philosophically, morally meritorious and given the right conditions and time, any race/caste can catch up. And as human beings, we should desire/strive for that.

>> societies need people who have more values which unify, and few which devide

The issue could be in your mind and backward thinking. That is like saying that caste is a unifying faction and so inter-caste marriage has to be opposed. That is a backward thinking. Diversity in culture, arts, diverse personal religious faiths etc - I do not see why that is a problem. It should be celebrated.

>> you should not decide whether europe should accept immigrants if they do not want to.

I am not 'deciding' anything. But if someone says that a person is necessarily incompetent due to his/her nationality/race/caste etc, I will counter that argument (just as I would counter similar arguments made about inter-caste marriages etc)

>> your pontificateing as if you were the messiah, hovering over humanity flying with angel wings … you are a real weirdo

Everything that I am saying is pretty basic and agreed by billions of people all over the world. That you have a problem with it is the weird part. The Constitution of India (and of all secular democracies of the world) agrees 100% with me.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Oct 04, 2009 01:13 AM
119

Perhaps, if mountbatton had proposed an independant undivided india, with m k gandhi as pm or president, all, including jinnah might have accepted, like washington as the first president of usa. perhaps, india bled in partition, as price paid in not giving the real dues, to the leader who got it the freedom!
v.seshadri
chennai, india
Oct 04, 2009 01:11 AM
118

faruki and kumar

a few direct questions, which need direct answers

aaa are muslims in india liberal-in which way

bbb are pakistani,s liberal- are they friendlt towards
india- i mean the large majority.

ccc which are the societies yoú admire across the world,and where you would like to live.

ddd who are your favourite writers, thinkers,

eee is the world more open to open cultural societies
now then before- if not why not.

fff is the world becomeing more tolerant-

wrt muslim countries
and nonmuslim countries.

ggg will muslim countries be more like western countries some time in the future.

now the ball is in your court.
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 04, 2009 01:05 AM
117

R_P:>>"Gandhi had earlier said that India could be partitioned only over his dead body. The Partition occurred but Gandhi remained alive. When sceptics taunted Gandhi about this his former secretary and biographer, Peareylal, recorded that Gandhi would angrily lash out at his critics and say should he kill himself just to satisfy others?" ..."Writing his last will and testament by which he sought the dissolution of the Congress as a political party on the very day of his assassination was a striking coincidence".

there is probably one possibility, that seems being ignored. despite being called mahatma, gandhi was also only human. perhaps, he expected that he may be made the prime minister or president of undivided india. no one even suggested it, bec people assumed he was a spiritual type, who did not want political office, altho excercised a lot of political power. perhaps, many of his Sakuni kind of operations leading to the partition of the country were out of frustration that he was not being offered the positions, others took, treating him only as senior advisor. He never got even the presidentship of the congress.

gandhi was only 78 at the time of india's independance. he was saying he will live beyond hundred. look at vajpayi, advani, joshi, karunaanidhi, all aged politicians, well beyond 80, none feeling too old for office!. if vajpayi had quit for advani in 2004, giving enough time for elec-prep, bjp might have won. only the illness of vajpay has brought LKA to the top!

perhaps gandhi paid the painful price of personal disappointment, for not getting the top office, for the perception of a spiritual halo, and consequent confusions, also. even nehru did not quit till death. rajaji started swatantra party when out of power! had renunciation gone out of the indic genes?
God only knows the truth. But, then, all the good souls do deserve the rest in peace with God.
v.seshadri
chennai, india
Oct 04, 2009 12:57 AM
116

kumar

aaa i dont believe that all peoples,races,nations are
equal in intellect-if they were then the world would
expeience uniform development. however in all nations there are people with exceptional intellect

bbb liberal societies need certain conditions in which
they can thrive.

the experience of european countries is that some kinds
of immigrants do not fit in their societies.
societies need people who have more values which unify,
and few which devide. muslims especially fall in the
camp where they have more things which devide and few
which unify.

you should not decide whether europe should accept immigrants if they do not want to. your lectures on
what constitutes a good society is laughable-are you
going to order european countries around- you are
plain round the bend.

even chinese, japanese, arabs decide whom they will accept and who they will reject.

i note your pontificateing as if you were the messiah,
hovering over humanity flying with angel wings, a pink
frock, whilst the others sing hallelujah.

i think you are a real weirdo-
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 04, 2009 12:37 AM
115

Gayatri Devi,

>> i live as a liberal, or try and do so.
>> i have eaten togather with dalits, muslims-and as well with my family. i believe in rights for all especially for women- the right to dress well, engage in song and dance, and with all opportunities to do well. i believe in freedom of thought and expression ..

You should assert and fight for the rights/justice/freedom of all citizens/human beings regardless of race, religion, caste, class etc (and that the state should necessarily do so). You should also assert that people of any race/caste etc can be intellectually, philosophically/morally meritorious given the circumstances, social conditions etc.
Instead, you talk of dividing nations multiple times on communal lines (instead of secular democracy where everyone is free to have their personal beliefs) and support ghettoized living (instead of accepting human diversity and freedom are part of life). You also seem to be inclined to believe that some races/castes etc have an inherent problem of being inferior etc for racist reasons. You have serious problems with freedom of religion. You have serious troubles, resentment and restlessness if someone criticizes violent extremists (and conveniently play a cheap trick of advising the critics to go to other places where problems are more). All these things go seriously against your claim of being a liberal and in fact places you in the exact opposite camp.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Oct 04, 2009 12:16 AM
114

VARUN:

I am sorry if one remark in my last message to you may have been misunderstood by you.

When I asked "How stupid do you have to be...." I did not mean you personally. It would have been better put: "How stupid does one have to be...." I was speaking about people in general.

But going back to the subject, it is amazing how tenaciously many Hindus hold on to illusions about Muslims.

The blunt FACT is, for reasons both GOOD and bad, Muslims utterly despise and loathe Hindus.

Their emotional committment is to the Middle East and Arabia. The feel nothing but alienated contempt for anything in Indian history apart from the things brought by Islamic invaders.

This can never change.

Muslims are Indian in appearance but Arabs at heart, and fanatical ones at that.

The appalling fellow called Anwaar is a good example. He is rabidly enthusiatic about Muslim throat-slitters in Afghanistan or Iraq, but never shows the slightest concern for any cause connected with Hinduism.

Nehru took a great, beneficial, decision when he decided to accept Pakistan. It saved Hindus. Going for the delusion of a united India at that point would have been deadly: like deciding to marry a partner who fopr decades had declared her hatred for one.



Nehru had plenty of appeasing illusions about Muslims prior to this incredibly important decsion - the most important in Indian history - and afterwards, too. But in 1946 and 1947 he was at his most clear-headed and best.

His daughter Indira too had this pattern: entertaining deadly illusions about Muslim amiability, but realising the truth about them when it really counted, as in 1971 in the Bangladesh War.


A typical example
Iqbal Z
Pune, India
Oct 04, 2009 12:00 AM
113

VIJAY AGGARWAL:

I suggest you get a rusted wheelbarrow for your wife. That is your level.
Iqbal Z
Pune, India
Oct 03, 2009 09:02 PM
112

A:>>"Many Nobel laureates are not related to any laureates"

chandra-sekhar was the nephew of c. v. raman.

perhaps, the mk-rajesh-types might ask for caste-cum-ethnicity-based reservations, on nobel awards also.
then the Bs of south india may be kept out for another century.
v.seshadri
chennai, india
Oct 03, 2009 08:56 PM
111

A:>>"Your glee could hardly be hidden"

please stop posting retort replies, reading only the first line of any statement. not eager for your replies, anyway.
v.seshadri
chennai, india
Oct 03, 2009 08:49 PM
110

V_C3:

you have the excellent potential for writing a book titled 'why I converted away from hinduism'. it will sell a lot of copies, like ilaya's book, being quoted by prabhu. all your fellow-pastors will enjoy reading it, can use it for further conversion of more hindus. good luck to you. but, I think you will be more convincing, if you honestly call yourself pastorji, instead of having the dirty hindu brahmin name of chatterji.

devout hindus know the spiritual significances, inner meanings, of all their puranas, itihaasas, temples and temple architectural details. they cannot be diverted by your misleading propaganda, waste of time and effort only.

you should probably concentrate on saving your churchdom from the disgrace it is getting from stories of the clergy misusing the sisters in your convents and the kids in your orphanages. It will help you reduce the number of millions in dollars, your church has to pay in damages. the amount can be better utilized for converting more credulous tribals. May jesus christ bless you with wisdom on your projects.

But, then, very soon, all devout christians and dveout moslems, also, will start seeing themselves as some more sanaatanists worshipping skanda in the name of jesus and Siva in the name of Allah. You ugly conversionist clergy are likely to be exterminated by the cross in jesus' hand turned into manoo-velan's spear. All the terrorist-islamists are likely to be burnt off by the fire-eye of Siva = allah only. It is already happening. every day, a good number of islamist terrorists are getting self-blasted and burnt out.

the only unfortunate aspect is that, while those killed by krishna's cakra or skanda's spear will get spiritual salvation, those burnt by Allah = Siva's fire-eye-fury will have their very souls extinguished. But God must have His reasons for such things happening. May His will be done.
v.seshadri
chennai, india
Oct 03, 2009 08:36 PM
109

" Hinduism is flexible and dynamic. "
'
Varun Shekhar

That is the root cause all the problems India is facing now .It was known even in 1947 .But you people were being led by Gandhi-Nehru with eyes closed.Nathu Ram Godse is being abused for killing Gandhi though he was hanged for his act .But what about Gandhi-Nehru and their betrayal of our Motherland ? They sent Rs. 55 crores as gift to Jinnah who had ordered sending of hordes in Kashmir .

Read the Offical War History :

"Official History of the Jammu & Kashmir Operations

Why did Pakistan invade Kashmir in the first place? First, Kashmir being a Muslim-dominant state was considered a natural part of Pakistan, which had made Islam the basis of its modern nationality. Second, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan's Pathanistan Movement was gaining momentum and Kashmir was held out as a bait for luring the poor tribals away. The internal conditions of Jammu & Kashmir with religious passions aflame, lawlessness rampant and authority paralysed offered the right mix for the raiders to strike"


http://www.bharat-ra...fending-Kashmir.html

Still Gandhi forced GOI to finance Pakistan's War against India .

And you people call him Father of the Nation !!!
happy ram ambalvi
Ambala Cantt, India
Oct 03, 2009 08:34 PM
108

faruki

i live as a liberal, or try and do so.

i have eaten togather with dalits, muslims-and as well
with my family.

i believe in rights for all especially for women-
the right to dress well, engage in song and dance,
and with all opportunities to do well.

i believe in freedom of thought and expression( you
dont care for this)

i dont have any hang ups on what to eat or drink-

when i am not a liberal

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

i am against religious orthodoxy or religious or idealogical bigotry.

against the skull caps, burqas, turbans, ghungats,
and like wise

i guess i am as liberal as those in the main stream
in europe.

who are the philosophers i respect
-----------------------------
amongst philiosophers-schopenhaur, hegel, voltair,david hume-

amongst statemen
-------------------------------

abraham lincoln, martin luther king, winston churchill,
de gaulle, nehru, patel, nelson mandela,

writers
----------------------------------

alexander sol----, tolstoy, sholakov, steinbeck,
j.d.salinger, harper lee, margaret mitchell,
dickens, shakespeare, galsworthy, naipaul, bronte
sisters, -------------

by the way i dont read mein kamf as you probably suspect for bed time reading.
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 03, 2009 08:12 PM
107

Hinduism is not under trial or under watch, or a global ideological threat, Vivek Chatterjee. Islamism is. You can recount a number of bizarre ideas or practices under the rubric of Hinduism, with your crypto-Moslem or crypto-Christian lens. To what end? Hinduism is flexible and dynamic.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Oct 03, 2009 07:59 PM
106

I wonder when Islamic monsters do namaaz what exactly they pray for. There is actually nothing in Koran to pray for except Prophet’s instigation to kill the kafirs.>>Siddharth of Chennai

Apparently, you are a Southie scum who is a proud of his religion. It goes without saying that you are one of those cattle worshippers.It is a known fact that Sita had sex with the monkey, Hanuman. She was later raped by Ravan. Ravan ki jai ho. MF Hussain painted a reality, the lewd nature of Sita and Saraswathi. Find below some facts about your holy religion:
Jagannath is the god enshrined in the famous Hindu temple at Puri. Sankarachariya, the spiritual head of the present Hindus of India, is the devotee of Jagannath of Puri. Hundreds of measures of rice and dal are cooked here daily to feed the thousands of worshippers.

At the Jaya-Vijiya gate of this temple various type of sexual orgies of the god Jagannath can be seen sculptured on granite stones. On the outer walls of this temple are life-size sculptures of the 64 types of sexual mating of men and women as described in the Kamasutra of Vatsyayana.

The dance Bhajan in this temple begins after 10 p.m each day behind closed doors. It is performed by one of the 120 dancing girls in the service of the temple. Each night a new dancing girl will have to come to the temple to dance before god Jaganath. This dance is witnessed only by the lifeless statue of Jagnnath and the Brahmin priest who plays on the musical instrument.

As the dance heightens to a crescendo, the girl discards her dress and dances stark naked. She then throws herself to the statue of Jagannath in an ecstasy shouting “O Lord, I am thy bride, please make love with me”.

Whether it is the lifeless idol of Jagannath or the living Brahmin priest who makes love with her is not known (It is strictly forbidden for Non-Hindus to enter the Jagannatha temple).

Dancing girls who have retired form the service of god Jagannath are now making both ends meet by leading a life of prostitution in the streets of holy Puri. Their patrons are the worshippers who come in their thousands to the sacred city.

Sabarimalai Sastha – Hindu God # 6

Sabarimalai Sastha or Ayyapa is a sylvan god worshipped by the credulous Hindus of Kerala and Tamil Nadu in India. He is the son born to Siva and Vishnu as a result of a homosexual act.

To escape from the curse of the powerful demon Durwasa, all the gods joined together and churned the milky ocean to gather “Amrut”-a butter-like ambrosia. They collected the “Amrut” in a pot, and kept it to be served at a heavenly feast. An Asura (demon) from the nether world stole the pot of ” Amrut from Develoka. When the loss of the ambrosia was detected, the omniscient Vishnu was able to know where it was. He went to the nether world in the guise of Mohini, a woman of exquisite beauty, and brought and back the “Amrut” and served it to the gods. When Mohini was serving the Amrut, Shiva got intoxicated with her beauty and had sexual intercourse with her, who was in reality Vishnu. Vishnu became pregnant as a result of the homosexual act, and gave birth to Sastha from his thigh. Both Shiva and Vishnu discarded this un-naturally born illegitimate child in the forests of Sabarimalai in Kerala.

Sri Rama – Hindu God # 5
Sri Rama was another incarnation of Mahavishnu. He and his three brothers Lakshmanan, Bharatha and Shatrugna were born to three wives of King Dasharatha. Like Jesus, Ram and his brothers were not through a human father although Dasharatha was the husband of their mothers. They were conceived in their mothers’ wombs as a result of the three women eating portions of a sacred porridge.

Krishna – Hindu God # 4

Krishna is the 9th incarnation of Mahavishnu. Like Jesus Christ, Krishna was born as the “son of man” at Ambadi among cowherds. Although he had sixteen thousand and eight wives, Krishna did not let other women go free. Once, when he saw some Gopi women bathing in the river Kalindi, Krishna carried away their clothes from the bank of the river, and got on a nearby tree to feast his eyes on the Gopi women bathing in the nude. He returned their dresses only after each of them came out of the water and worshipped him so that he could see their nude bodies in full. It is claimed that Krishna was so potent that he could satisfy all his 16008 wives at the same time.

Indra – Hindu Gods # 3
Indra is the head of all gods. Amarawati was his celestial residence. Arjun was born to Indra as a result of his clandestine adultery with Pandu’s wife, he had no hesitation in committing adultery with the wives of other men. One day when Indra saw Ruchi, the beautiful wife of Devasarma, he became extremely passionate and wanted to seduce her. But Ruchi chased Indra out ,and he had to go away disappointed.

On another occasion Indra could not control his sexual passion when he saw Goutama’s wife Ahalya. He committed adultery with Ahalya when her husband was away. On his return home Goutama saw Indra in sexual interlock with his wife. Goutama cursed both of them.

Once Aruna visited Devaloka in the disguise of a woman. When Indra saw this woman in disguise he could not control his passion. He had sexual intercourse with this imitation woman. Bali was born as the result of this un-natural homosexual cohabitation
Vivek Chatterjee
CALCUTTA, India
Oct 03, 2009 07:58 PM
105

test
Vivek Chatterjee
CALCUTTA, India
Oct 03, 2009 07:47 PM
104

"In 1946, the Interim government to prepare Independence headed by Nehru was utterly stalled by pig-headed Muslim determination to obstruct each and every measure.

Even Nehru, inclined to make endless excuses for Muslims, was completely exhausted and disillusioned. As he said, even Partition was better than this descent into governmental paralysis and social mass killing."

Yes, Iqbal. Nehru himself was so disgusted and repelled by the behaviour of the Moslem representatives, that he wondered whether he didn't belong to a different nation than they did. It was sayonara at that point. My "whining" is not so much about the partition per se, brutal as it was. It's about the nature of the people who made it inevitable. Demagogic, violent, gangsterish... a disaster.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Oct 03, 2009 07:41 PM
103

"The barbarism has been continuous down the ages and yet Gandhi ignored it trying to mix oil and water by saying "Ishwar Allah tero naam!". If stupidty should get"

Good observation. The initiative for such ideas always comes from Hindus; Moslems reject the above slogan unreservedly. Try openly uttering the passage in Pakistan or among the Taliban.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Oct 03, 2009 07:35 PM
102

Siddarth, those passages from the Koran targeting Hindus/idolaters are absolutely blood curdling. One hopes this is not the view of Hindus throughout Moslem majority countries.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Oct 03, 2009 06:55 PM
101

Gayatri/Lalit,

>> these are the qualifications of being a liberal in india....

Your idea of being a liberal is to be an agnostic and to hate the community that it is currently fashinable to hate! If you were living in Europe seventy years ago you would have been in the forefront of the anti-semitic brigade! We do have a good liberal tradition in India, but you are the exact opposite of a liberal. I must add that our liberal tradition is under-represented in this forum.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States