01-30-2008, 11:22 PM
Where Do Indian Muslims Go From Here?
This articles contains a good pack of lies & half-truths.
From Moghul emperor Akbar to Bahadur Shah Zafar - the hero of Indiaâs first war of independence, to Maulana Azad - the pre-eminent freedom fighter, to President APJ Abdul Kalam â the creator of Indiaâs missile program and beyond, there is an illustrious unending string of Muslims who contributed substantially in the building of the Indian nation over the centuries.
<b>The Past</b>
In the 600 years that Muslims were in power in India most Muslim kings were moderates who held power by forming alliances of Muslims and Hindus. During the 300 year long Moghul empire it was a political alliance of Moghuls and Rajput Hindus that held power in North India. Together, they spent decades to extend their hold into South India waging continual wars against the Bahmani sultans, the Golkunda dynasty, the Qutubshahi dynasty - all of whom were Muslims.
Most Muslim rulers and their noblemen in India forsook the ethos of the West Asian nations of their origin and integrated themselves with the culture and soil of India to create the Indo-Islamic civilization. Much as in ancient times the Aryans of central Asia integrated themselves with the same Indian soil to develop the Hindu civilization.
Indian Muslims are justifiably proud of their Indo-Islamic heritage. It is a genuinely Indian civilization that the people of India belonging to different religions created by merging the culture of the Muslim immigrants from West Asia with that of the Hindus of India.
At the dawn of independence while a sizeable number of Muslims migrated to Pakistan, about 60 million at that time chose to stay in India. <b>Without a doubt these people rejected the two nation theory</b>(rejected because it was difficult to move, not that they did not want to go), considered the formation of Pakistan a disaster for the Muslims and India, and believed in the secular and diverse milieu of India.
It can not be forgotten that a majority of Muslims in the provinces that remained in India supported Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Valabbahi Patel and Maulana Azad in their opposition to the partitioning of India.
<b>The Present</b>
However soon after independence in 1947 Muslims in India found themselves the victims of the backlash of the formation of Pakistan, an action that they had opposed strongly. <b>They found themselves excluded from the mainstream and suspect in their nationalism, in the midst of people with whom they had grown up as youngsters.</b> (If you goto a Madrassa but not to nearby govt. school, then what can anyone do)
<b>Today the overwhelming majority of Indiaâs Muslims consider being Indian as important as being Muslim.</b> (I am yet to find a IM, who will unequivocally put nation first and religion second and then you complain about being found wanted in nationalism) A majority of them are people who were born after independence and for whom stories of Indiaâs partition is something that they heard from their parents. Of their own free will Muslims vote for secular parties rather than for Muslim parties and candidates, who are not secular.
The result of the last election indicates that of the about thirty Muslim members of the Indian parliament, all of whom stood from constituencies with sizeable Muslim population, only three are from Muslim parties. Muslims in India never associate with any separatists or anti-national elements. As for the Kashmir problem, it is not a Hindu-Muslim problem. It is the result of years of mismanagement by successive governments in New Delhi and Srinagar, that allowed the festering impoverishment and deprivation of Kashmiris to acquire an anti-national color.
<b>The Despair</b>
In-spite of their being 140 million strong and their overwhelming festering impoverishment, Muslims in India have no leadership worth its name, no coherent direction and no roadmap to break out of their sixty year old state- of- siege. (that is the result of Madrassa training) The number of Indian Muslims living below poverty level has remained at 55 percent for decades, compared to the 35 percent national average. Similarly 45 percent of the Muslim community continues to be illiterate compared to 36 percent for all Indians; 55 percent of Muslim women are illiterate compared to 40 percent for all Indian women.
The blight and squalor of Muslim townships in Indiaâs many cities reflects the contempt with which successive federal and state governments have treated the Muslim community for decades. <b>The very acute shortage of schools, medical clinics, parks, paved roads, sanitation facilities and the large number of unemployed youth in Muslim localities is a gnawing reality.</b> (as if these are not a problem in Hindu villages) In most Muslim high schools there are either no libraries and laboratories, or they are in shambles. Despite many surveys, commissions and recommendations that successive federal and state governments have promulgated, the very poor condition of the basic civic infrastructure in Muslim townships flies in the face of the impressive modernized infrastructure in the rest of the country.
For sixty years now<b> Muslim Dalits and Muslim OBCs</b>, (I thought everyone is equal in Islam, isn't that the reason given why Hindu SCs converted to Islam) despite their impoverishment and despair, have been excluded from the purview of the governmentâs affirmative action plan while Hindu and Buddhist Dalits and OBCs have benefitted immensely from such plans.
For decades a variety of political parties, e.g. Congress, Samajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party, Communist Party of India and others that proclaim themselves as sympathetic to Muslims, have continued to exploit the Muslim community for their votes with empty and meaningless promises that have remained unfulfilled, even though waves of elections have come and gone. While these parties have given tickets to Muslim candidates for parliament and state assemblies, and some of them have won, these powerless Muslim representatives in the political infrastructure have no voice in bringing development to the Muslim townships. Over a decade ago these parties proclaimed repeatedly in UP and Bihar that Urdu â the mother tongue of Muslims in those states â will be the second language. But after more than a decade hardly any Urdu teachers have been hired for the numerous schools, and Urdu with which their heritage is directly linked continues to die.
<b>In such circumstances it is indeed strange that some political parties and politicians often campaign on the theme that successive governments have appeased Muslims.</b> (Muslim community has long been appeased by granting special privilidges to them in constitution, separate laws, special status in Kashmir etc etc., forthcoming - 15% budget in the next 5 yr plan) This misleading propaganda has so charged the atmosphere that today every legitimate Muslim grievance, be it an appeal for financial relief for victims of communal violence, or basic infrastructure uplift, or better schools or preservation of Urdu, or protection of mosques and shrines, or freedom to retain their Muslim identity, is advertised by the obscurantist political forces as Muslimsâ attempt to seek special privileges.
<b>The Future</b>
After waiting for sixty years to have political parties and others lobby for them and help resolve their problems, today the future of the Muslim community lies in taking a bold lead and seeking the active help of the majority Hindu community and the power structure. They need to calmly persuade majority Hindus that their backwardness is a national Indian problem just like the backwardness of the lower caste Hindus, and that it is not a problem of just the Muslim community.
If the Muslims are trying to retain their Indo-Islamic identity then so are all major ethnic groups in India. Punjabi Hindus have very different social practices than Tamil Hindus; Bengali Hindus have totally different social practices than the Gujarati Hindus; UP/Bihar Hindus have completely different cultural practices than the Andhra Pradesh Hindus. So why should mainstream India interpret the attempts of the Indian Muslims to retain their distinct identity as lack of integration and nationalism? Why not lend a helping hand to help break their state-of-siege?
<b>Kaleem Kawaja is past President of Association of Indian Muslims of America (AIM), Washington DC</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Most Muslim rulers and their noblemen in India forsook the ethos of the West Asian nations of their origin and integrated themselves with the culture and soil of India to create the Indo-Islamic civilization. Much as in ancient times the Aryans of central Asia integrated themselves with the same Indian soil to develop the Hindu civilization. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The "Aryans of central Asia" business is a lie. That "history" has now been rubbished. Note that if Mr Kallem Kawaja can quote history that is convenient to his viewpoint, why be concerned but "injustices" being done to Muslims using similarly distorted history
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indian Muslims are justifiably proud of their Indo-Islamic heritage.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No Doubt No doubt.
But most Hindus too are justifiably proud of their Indic heritage.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It can not be forgotten that a majority of Muslims in the provinces that remained in India supported Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Valabbahi Patel and Maulana Azad in their opposition to the partitioning of India. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sir. The Muslim majority provinces voted for the Muslim league. Some of those provinces still remain very backward.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->However soon after independence in 1947 Muslims in India found themselves the victims of the backlash of the formation of Pakistan, an action that they had opposed strongly. They found themselves excluded from the mainstream and suspect in their nationalism, in the midst of people with whom they had grown up as youngsters.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True. But look at the Hindu viewpoint. The Hindu could survive ONLY if he chose India. The Muslim in 1947 was free to choose to live in India or Pakistan. And for years it was not clear to Hindus whether a given Muslim would choose this nation or that. The Hindu was restricted, not the Muslim. The Hindu was restricted from living or visiting what had been part of his land. The Muslim was given rights in india and would be welcome in Pakistan.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the Kashmir problem, it is not a Hindu-Muslim problem. It is the result of years of mismanagement by successive governments in New Delhi and Srinagar, that allowed the festering impoverishment and deprivation of Kashmiris to acquire an anti-national color. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe correct sir. Maybe correct. But there is a Hindu viewpoint too. "Years of mismanagement" includes the ethnic cleansing of Hindu pandits by Muslims, so it's a little lie to say that there was no Hindu-Muslim problem there. Another little lie is the complaint that partition made Indian Muslims suspect in an earlier paragraph, and quietly forgetting that Pakistanis, who, for Hindus were "people with whom they had grown up as youngsters." made every effort to portray Kashmir as a Hindu Muslim problem. How can an Indian Muslim conveniently deny that there was no "Hindu-Muslim problem" in Kashmir?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Muslims in India have no leadership worth its name, no coherent direction and no roadmap to break out of their sixty year old state- of- siege.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is another lie to say that Muslims do not have leaders. When Muslims do not have leaders they go to the ulema and follow what the ulema say. That is part of the problem. There are plenty of Hindu leaders to follow. One has to learn to trust at least some of them. They are telling Muslims what to do, but Muslims do not follow them. Tell the truth sir, are Muslims taught, or are they not taught to distrust non Muslims?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->55 percent of Muslim women are illiterate compared to 40 percent for all Indian women.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Social workers that I speak to tell me that Muslims refuse to send their girls to school. Muslims may want slamic schools for them. If Muslims want to stay apart, why complain about Hindus. Hindus are begging for Muslims to join, not remain separate. Muslims choose not to join and choose to whine and whine and whine and complain.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For sixty years now Muslim Dalits and Muslim OBCs, despite their impoverishment and despair, have been excluded from the purview of the governmentâs affirmative action plan<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But sir - this is confusing. You say "Muslim Dalits and Muslim OBCs". But "dalits" and "OBCs" are HHindu problem are they not? castes are for Hindus not Muslims? Are you conveniently now asking for case because it is beneficial to do that.
From a Hindu viewpoint, Muslims in 1947 asked for a separate country because that was convenient. Now you are asking for a new definition that makes caste a Muslim feature. That sounds like a convenient ploy. Doesn't everyone want an advantage?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If the Muslims are trying to retain their Indo-Islamic identity then so are all major ethnic groups in India. Punjabi Hindus have very different social practices than Tamil Hindus; Bengali Hindus have totally different social practices than the Gujarati Hindus; UP/Bihar Hindus have completely different cultural practices than the Andhra Pradesh Hindus. So why should mainstream India interpret the attempts of the Indian Muslims to retain their distinct identity as lack of integration and nationalism? Why not lend a helping hand to help break their state-of-siege?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, yes yes Sir. But you forget that all these Punjabi, Tamil and UP/Bihar Hindus - with all their differences, share in Indic culture. Can Muslims show that they share that Indic culture too? After all that indic culture has been dissed, criticized and trashed. Pakistan has tried to reject it, and you too are denying it by pretending that all these Hindus are different. Yes they are different - but the link is Indic culture boss. It has survived and will thrive. Why do you choose to deny that it is present?
And don't forget that dalits and OBCs - a group you now claim includes Muslims are ALSO Indic culture. Why deny it in one area and beg to join it in another?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This articles contains a good pack of lies & half-truths.
From Moghul emperor Akbar to Bahadur Shah Zafar - the hero of Indiaâs first war of independence, to Maulana Azad - the pre-eminent freedom fighter, to President APJ Abdul Kalam â the creator of Indiaâs missile program and beyond, there is an illustrious unending string of Muslims who contributed substantially in the building of the Indian nation over the centuries.
<b>The Past</b>
In the 600 years that Muslims were in power in India most Muslim kings were moderates who held power by forming alliances of Muslims and Hindus. During the 300 year long Moghul empire it was a political alliance of Moghuls and Rajput Hindus that held power in North India. Together, they spent decades to extend their hold into South India waging continual wars against the Bahmani sultans, the Golkunda dynasty, the Qutubshahi dynasty - all of whom were Muslims.
Most Muslim rulers and their noblemen in India forsook the ethos of the West Asian nations of their origin and integrated themselves with the culture and soil of India to create the Indo-Islamic civilization. Much as in ancient times the Aryans of central Asia integrated themselves with the same Indian soil to develop the Hindu civilization.
Indian Muslims are justifiably proud of their Indo-Islamic heritage. It is a genuinely Indian civilization that the people of India belonging to different religions created by merging the culture of the Muslim immigrants from West Asia with that of the Hindus of India.
At the dawn of independence while a sizeable number of Muslims migrated to Pakistan, about 60 million at that time chose to stay in India. <b>Without a doubt these people rejected the two nation theory</b>(rejected because it was difficult to move, not that they did not want to go), considered the formation of Pakistan a disaster for the Muslims and India, and believed in the secular and diverse milieu of India.
It can not be forgotten that a majority of Muslims in the provinces that remained in India supported Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Valabbahi Patel and Maulana Azad in their opposition to the partitioning of India.
<b>The Present</b>
However soon after independence in 1947 Muslims in India found themselves the victims of the backlash of the formation of Pakistan, an action that they had opposed strongly. <b>They found themselves excluded from the mainstream and suspect in their nationalism, in the midst of people with whom they had grown up as youngsters.</b> (If you goto a Madrassa but not to nearby govt. school, then what can anyone do)
<b>Today the overwhelming majority of Indiaâs Muslims consider being Indian as important as being Muslim.</b> (I am yet to find a IM, who will unequivocally put nation first and religion second and then you complain about being found wanted in nationalism) A majority of them are people who were born after independence and for whom stories of Indiaâs partition is something that they heard from their parents. Of their own free will Muslims vote for secular parties rather than for Muslim parties and candidates, who are not secular.
The result of the last election indicates that of the about thirty Muslim members of the Indian parliament, all of whom stood from constituencies with sizeable Muslim population, only three are from Muslim parties. Muslims in India never associate with any separatists or anti-national elements. As for the Kashmir problem, it is not a Hindu-Muslim problem. It is the result of years of mismanagement by successive governments in New Delhi and Srinagar, that allowed the festering impoverishment and deprivation of Kashmiris to acquire an anti-national color.
<b>The Despair</b>
In-spite of their being 140 million strong and their overwhelming festering impoverishment, Muslims in India have no leadership worth its name, no coherent direction and no roadmap to break out of their sixty year old state- of- siege. (that is the result of Madrassa training) The number of Indian Muslims living below poverty level has remained at 55 percent for decades, compared to the 35 percent national average. Similarly 45 percent of the Muslim community continues to be illiterate compared to 36 percent for all Indians; 55 percent of Muslim women are illiterate compared to 40 percent for all Indian women.
The blight and squalor of Muslim townships in Indiaâs many cities reflects the contempt with which successive federal and state governments have treated the Muslim community for decades. <b>The very acute shortage of schools, medical clinics, parks, paved roads, sanitation facilities and the large number of unemployed youth in Muslim localities is a gnawing reality.</b> (as if these are not a problem in Hindu villages) In most Muslim high schools there are either no libraries and laboratories, or they are in shambles. Despite many surveys, commissions and recommendations that successive federal and state governments have promulgated, the very poor condition of the basic civic infrastructure in Muslim townships flies in the face of the impressive modernized infrastructure in the rest of the country.
For sixty years now<b> Muslim Dalits and Muslim OBCs</b>, (I thought everyone is equal in Islam, isn't that the reason given why Hindu SCs converted to Islam) despite their impoverishment and despair, have been excluded from the purview of the governmentâs affirmative action plan while Hindu and Buddhist Dalits and OBCs have benefitted immensely from such plans.
For decades a variety of political parties, e.g. Congress, Samajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party, Communist Party of India and others that proclaim themselves as sympathetic to Muslims, have continued to exploit the Muslim community for their votes with empty and meaningless promises that have remained unfulfilled, even though waves of elections have come and gone. While these parties have given tickets to Muslim candidates for parliament and state assemblies, and some of them have won, these powerless Muslim representatives in the political infrastructure have no voice in bringing development to the Muslim townships. Over a decade ago these parties proclaimed repeatedly in UP and Bihar that Urdu â the mother tongue of Muslims in those states â will be the second language. But after more than a decade hardly any Urdu teachers have been hired for the numerous schools, and Urdu with which their heritage is directly linked continues to die.
<b>In such circumstances it is indeed strange that some political parties and politicians often campaign on the theme that successive governments have appeased Muslims.</b> (Muslim community has long been appeased by granting special privilidges to them in constitution, separate laws, special status in Kashmir etc etc., forthcoming - 15% budget in the next 5 yr plan) This misleading propaganda has so charged the atmosphere that today every legitimate Muslim grievance, be it an appeal for financial relief for victims of communal violence, or basic infrastructure uplift, or better schools or preservation of Urdu, or protection of mosques and shrines, or freedom to retain their Muslim identity, is advertised by the obscurantist political forces as Muslimsâ attempt to seek special privileges.
<b>The Future</b>
After waiting for sixty years to have political parties and others lobby for them and help resolve their problems, today the future of the Muslim community lies in taking a bold lead and seeking the active help of the majority Hindu community and the power structure. They need to calmly persuade majority Hindus that their backwardness is a national Indian problem just like the backwardness of the lower caste Hindus, and that it is not a problem of just the Muslim community.
If the Muslims are trying to retain their Indo-Islamic identity then so are all major ethnic groups in India. Punjabi Hindus have very different social practices than Tamil Hindus; Bengali Hindus have totally different social practices than the Gujarati Hindus; UP/Bihar Hindus have completely different cultural practices than the Andhra Pradesh Hindus. So why should mainstream India interpret the attempts of the Indian Muslims to retain their distinct identity as lack of integration and nationalism? Why not lend a helping hand to help break their state-of-siege?
<b>Kaleem Kawaja is past President of Association of Indian Muslims of America (AIM), Washington DC</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Most Muslim rulers and their noblemen in India forsook the ethos of the West Asian nations of their origin and integrated themselves with the culture and soil of India to create the Indo-Islamic civilization. Much as in ancient times the Aryans of central Asia integrated themselves with the same Indian soil to develop the Hindu civilization. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The "Aryans of central Asia" business is a lie. That "history" has now been rubbished. Note that if Mr Kallem Kawaja can quote history that is convenient to his viewpoint, why be concerned but "injustices" being done to Muslims using similarly distorted history
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indian Muslims are justifiably proud of their Indo-Islamic heritage.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No Doubt No doubt.
But most Hindus too are justifiably proud of their Indic heritage.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It can not be forgotten that a majority of Muslims in the provinces that remained in India supported Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Valabbahi Patel and Maulana Azad in their opposition to the partitioning of India. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sir. The Muslim majority provinces voted for the Muslim league. Some of those provinces still remain very backward.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->However soon after independence in 1947 Muslims in India found themselves the victims of the backlash of the formation of Pakistan, an action that they had opposed strongly. They found themselves excluded from the mainstream and suspect in their nationalism, in the midst of people with whom they had grown up as youngsters.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True. But look at the Hindu viewpoint. The Hindu could survive ONLY if he chose India. The Muslim in 1947 was free to choose to live in India or Pakistan. And for years it was not clear to Hindus whether a given Muslim would choose this nation or that. The Hindu was restricted, not the Muslim. The Hindu was restricted from living or visiting what had been part of his land. The Muslim was given rights in india and would be welcome in Pakistan.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the Kashmir problem, it is not a Hindu-Muslim problem. It is the result of years of mismanagement by successive governments in New Delhi and Srinagar, that allowed the festering impoverishment and deprivation of Kashmiris to acquire an anti-national color. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe correct sir. Maybe correct. But there is a Hindu viewpoint too. "Years of mismanagement" includes the ethnic cleansing of Hindu pandits by Muslims, so it's a little lie to say that there was no Hindu-Muslim problem there. Another little lie is the complaint that partition made Indian Muslims suspect in an earlier paragraph, and quietly forgetting that Pakistanis, who, for Hindus were "people with whom they had grown up as youngsters." made every effort to portray Kashmir as a Hindu Muslim problem. How can an Indian Muslim conveniently deny that there was no "Hindu-Muslim problem" in Kashmir?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Muslims in India have no leadership worth its name, no coherent direction and no roadmap to break out of their sixty year old state- of- siege.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is another lie to say that Muslims do not have leaders. When Muslims do not have leaders they go to the ulema and follow what the ulema say. That is part of the problem. There are plenty of Hindu leaders to follow. One has to learn to trust at least some of them. They are telling Muslims what to do, but Muslims do not follow them. Tell the truth sir, are Muslims taught, or are they not taught to distrust non Muslims?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->55 percent of Muslim women are illiterate compared to 40 percent for all Indian women.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Social workers that I speak to tell me that Muslims refuse to send their girls to school. Muslims may want slamic schools for them. If Muslims want to stay apart, why complain about Hindus. Hindus are begging for Muslims to join, not remain separate. Muslims choose not to join and choose to whine and whine and whine and complain.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For sixty years now Muslim Dalits and Muslim OBCs, despite their impoverishment and despair, have been excluded from the purview of the governmentâs affirmative action plan<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But sir - this is confusing. You say "Muslim Dalits and Muslim OBCs". But "dalits" and "OBCs" are HHindu problem are they not? castes are for Hindus not Muslims? Are you conveniently now asking for case because it is beneficial to do that.
From a Hindu viewpoint, Muslims in 1947 asked for a separate country because that was convenient. Now you are asking for a new definition that makes caste a Muslim feature. That sounds like a convenient ploy. Doesn't everyone want an advantage?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If the Muslims are trying to retain their Indo-Islamic identity then so are all major ethnic groups in India. Punjabi Hindus have very different social practices than Tamil Hindus; Bengali Hindus have totally different social practices than the Gujarati Hindus; UP/Bihar Hindus have completely different cultural practices than the Andhra Pradesh Hindus. So why should mainstream India interpret the attempts of the Indian Muslims to retain their distinct identity as lack of integration and nationalism? Why not lend a helping hand to help break their state-of-siege?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, yes yes Sir. But you forget that all these Punjabi, Tamil and UP/Bihar Hindus - with all their differences, share in Indic culture. Can Muslims show that they share that Indic culture too? After all that indic culture has been dissed, criticized and trashed. Pakistan has tried to reject it, and you too are denying it by pretending that all these Hindus are different. Yes they are different - but the link is Indic culture boss. It has survived and will thrive. Why do you choose to deny that it is present?
And don't forget that dalits and OBCs - a group you now claim includes Muslims are ALSO Indic culture. Why deny it in one area and beg to join it in another?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->