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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment