Indian/Hindu Identity

[acharya]

How Indians' dentities often get reprogrammed to 'South Asian'.


Until reading your articles I never really gave much thought to this 'South Asian' movement on campuses. I am currently enrolled in college and I have personally seen many of my own friends reprogram their identities to 'South Asian'. It is alarming to me how impressionable many Indian youth are while in college.

Nowadays most Indian kids are more concerned about being politically correct and appearing "open minded". After reading your articles I have tried to my best to convince people to assert an Indian-American identity however, I believe my efforts so far have been failures. You have written about how Indians' identities are "South Asianized" but you have not written why so many Indian youth have followed this path. I think one reason is that this 'South Asian' movement has been successful is because Indian kids often have strict upbringings and this creates a rebellious mentality in many youth. I believe that Indian girls are often the most susceptible to brainwashing of "South Asianists" because they are often subject to stricter treatment from parents and the rest of the Indian community then boys. "South Asianists" seem to exploit this and exaggerate it to the point where Indian/Hindu culture is associated with social ills against women. These "South Asianists" also exploit the way Indian parents push their kids to enter wealth generating fields and denounce this as being materialistic and superficial. Another trend I've also noticed is the way "South Asianists" dismiss the success of Indians in America as not being the result of hard work, intelligence and education but because of "immigration law" as Mr. Vijay Prashad put it.
http://www.asiansinamerica.org/museum/comm_ind.html

Even my own sister constantly tries to propagate this to me. It amazes me even more how almost all the people getting caught up in this 'South Asian' movement are Indians. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis always join their own or Muslim student organizations. Every time I point this out to fellow Indians none of them can ever give a valid reason or beat me in a debate as to why Indians should bother with the 'South Asian' tag. I grew up in a mainly Bangladeshi and Pakistani part of Brooklyn. From when I was a little kid I understood how different and how little I have in common with non-Indian South Asians. I believe Indians in Britain are much more aware of their Indian identity because skirmishes and fights between the Indian and Pakistani youth there are a common occurrence from what I have heard. On top of that is the well documented gap in education and achievement between the two communities with Indians rising to the top and Pakistanis confined to ghetto areas like the ones in Bradford and Birmingham. Because America is a big piece of land and also the fact that the more affluent areas where Indians are more prominent and the working class neighborhoods/ghettos of NYC where Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are more prominent, are so geographically isolated, Indians living in places like Long Island and Edison, NJ have no idea how different their ideal of South Asian unity and how reality is. I commend you for what you are doing for the Indian-American community. It is absolutely essential that we do whatever we can to make sure India is portrayed in positive light.

"South Asian" seems to be a temporary/unstable state pending further engineering - it suggests, "I am ready to be tutored to become whatever you want." Its significance is not based on what it is, but based on what it leaves behind (by way of implied and polite rejection) so as to clear the space for fresh programming.

... Those who remain behind as "native" Indians are seen as the new outcasts; they are vulnerable to future genocides resulting from overpopulation and civilizational clashes. Are we Indians turning into global shudras-for-hire with no identity of our own other than whatever the latest master assigns?

Postmodernism is an imperialist export - via co-opted (whitened) third world intellectuals - to distribute "theories" that support this trend as being desirable and/or inevitable. Whitened intermediaries like Harvard's Homi Bhabha are rewarded with cushy Ivy League jobs and turned into role models for facilitating the bandwagon effect among Indian intellectuals who are anxious to escape the "problems of Indianness." Meanwhile, the Harvard cabal under the choirship of Sugata Bose dishes out demonology against Indian culture to make the carrots more attractive for assuming new identities: hence the role of Harvard as the epicenter for studying sati, dowry, incest, caste, gender conflict as Indian "essences."


Indian culture which is deemed valuable is repackaged as "white" (such as yoga/meditation these days...) and this appropriation is sold to confused Indians as being a compliment by the whites. Whatever is left behind after the scavenging is branded as backward/facsist Indianness. Between these two extremes of whiteness and Indianness, the South Asian labeling provides the safety of a middle ground with enough ambiguity and wiggle room to customize and personalize. The student who wrote the email rightfully blames orthodox parents. I would add to his list the role of US based lazy and pompous Indian cultural leaders who naively play into this phenomenon...

[acharya]

http://www.despardes.com/articles/feb06/20...ublic-india.asp

Feb. 12, 2006 Des Pardes

`Islamic Republic of India´ By Aftab Alam

All the narcissism the Bharat has been bragging thereon has mostly been Indian Muslims heritage. Right from their legendary drummer, namely, Allah Rakha Khan to the architect of her missile program, Abdul Kalam Khan, including the overwhelming number of the most celebrated Poets, Writers, Historians, Geographers, Architectures, sport stars, film Stars, Musicians, Singers have been Muslim. Similarly all their world fame fascinating architectural monuments have been brought about by Indian Muslims. So much so that Hindus do not have the name for their own country - they have swindled us of our name "India" - which had been ours exclusively.

Indian Muslims on either side of the border have never been 'Pakistanis' and Hindus on either side of the border have never been 'Indians' - We have been 'Indian Muslims' throughout and they have been 'Bharati Hindus' throughout.
Similarly Indian Muslims have never ever named their homeland as Pakistan during their 1000-year rule - and 'Bharati Hindus' have never ever named their homeland as India, before the Muslims rule.

During the entire Muslims Era, we the Indian Muslims had always named our country as 'Hindustan' or 'Hind' as a nickname, in the local languages and 'India' in the western languages, before the great divide. Similarly Bharati-Hindus have always named their country as Bharat even after the partition, in Hindi language - and still today their official name in their constitution is Bharat. Bharat has never ever been 'India' - and 'India' has never ever been 'Bharat' before the partition.

The name 'India' therefore has nothing to do with 'Bharat,' 'Hinduism' or 'Hindus.' Bharati-Hindus have, like so many other symbols of our highly prestigious heritage and of our great pride, plagiarized, stealthily and slyly - and have been committing the most serious and grievous misnomer in regard of her name. 'Bharati Hindus' always keep their real face, trick and task cloaked, for their 'realities' look much ominous and injurious. So simply for this reasons they have displayed, our owned name, 'India' - and have sent their real name, 'Bharat' in the background, for they know that they can neither throw away their real name 'Bharat' nor they can escape there from so openly - hence by applying their traditional duplicity, they resorted to display the stolen name 'India' on the forefront and kept their real name 'Bharat' dormant, hidden and behind. Their real name has been Bharat throughout - even in the period far before than Ashoka the Great, which falls far before the Christ - while a well known Rajah namely, Rajah Bharata (or Rajah Bherath), according to "Puranas" had united some seven regions (or continents) in the north of the now Bharat and was reigning thereupon with great pomp and show. The name of that very regions (or continents), much less than the now Bharat (being somewhat peninsular) was 'Jambu Dvipa' - and hence after the death of the aforementioned Rajah Bharata (or Rajah Bharat), the Hindus used to call the land as 'Bharth Varsh' or Bharatavarsha (i.e. land of the Bharata). In this way the present name of 'Bharat' is the corruption of 'Bharata' (or Bherath).

I quote the exact words of the famous researcher, Sri Swami Sivananda from his book 'All about Hinduism' as below:

"The classical name for India which is used in Sanskrit literature is Bharata -Varsha or Bharata-Khanda, after the name of Bharata who ruled over a large extent of territory in days of yore. Manus name for the whole central region between the Himalayas and the Vindhya mountains is Aryavarta, Abode of the Aryans. Another name for the whole of India is Jambu-Dvipa. The Greeks gave the name Indu to the whole of this country. It was on account of this India became popular as the name of this country throughout Europe".

Renowned Professor C.R. Mishra notes in his valuable research work; 'Comprehensive History and Culture of Orissa' that Bharata did not originally denote India: "Bharatavarsha, here is used in a general sense denoting the regions of northern India " (P: 121). Elaborating this, he states that Bharata is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha inscription and that it denoted only a part of North India - " In the epigraphic records of ancient India, the name `Bharatavarsha' is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha inscription. But the name denoted North India at that time." (C.R. Mishra, `Kharavela and His Times', P: 130, N:
79).

And it is for this reason that their ultra religious and orthodox political pundits have named their most rabid pack as 'Bharatya Janata Party' (BJP) - the name of one of their religious book is also "Mahabharata" a long poem narrating the long fight between Kurus and Pandus, the two clans of Bharata family. And Hindus have also been calling their country as 'Bharat Mata' ( i.e. Mother Bharat). And now they have named their first ever so called spaceship as "Bharateena".

The Muslims have ruled exclusively, the whole Indian sub continent for round about 1000 years - if the name 'India' had any link with 'Hinduism' or Hindus, the Muslim powerful rulers, particularly the emperor Aurang Zeb Alamgeer would have consigned it to the dustbin of the history. They have grabbed our exclusively owned entity and property, the name 'India' - as they have grabbed Junagadh, Hyderabad Deccan, Siachin, Kargil and Kashmir.
How they did it, I borrow the quotation from the famous book, 'Freedom at Midnight' of the two renowned co-authors, Mr. Larry Collins & Mr. Dominique
Lapierre:

"AT THE OUTSET CONGRESS CLAIMED THE MOST PRECIOUS ASSET OF ALL, THE NAME "INDIA". REJECTING PROPOSAL TO NAME THEIR NEW DOMINION "HINDUSTAN", CONGRESS INSISTED THAT SINCE PAKISTAN WAS SECEDING, THE NAME INDIA AND INDIA'S IDENTITY IN GROUPS LIKE U.N. REMAIN THEIRS".

Now let us trace the base of the name 'India'. There is no denying the fact that the Greek word 'Indos' and the Latin word 'Indus' have been the ancient names of the mighty River, 'Sindh' (i.e. Indus) respectively - and the 'Sindhus' as well as India have been derived from the words 'Sindh' and 'Indus' respectively. One of the world's most ancient civilizations has been the 'Indus Valley Civilization' which came out more than 3230 BC - flourished and cherished in the Indus Valley - and when it perished, after the intrusion of the Aryan settlers - it was buried also in its nativity.
Thus the Indus Valley Civilization was also native of the Indus Valley. And ergo it also derived its name from the very river, 'Sindh, (i.e. Indus) - whose Greek and Latin names were/are pronounced as 'Indos' and 'Indus' - and so that ancient most civilization is remembered in the history, as "Indus Valley Civilization" - though it had the most 'contemporary' features.

Its main 'Mausoleums,' the largest sites with citadels, have also been discovered in Pakistan; 'Moenjo-Daro' on the lower Indus plain in the South at Larkana District - 'Chanhu Daro' in Nawabshah District, (in Sindh
Province) - 'Harappa' on the upper Indus plain in the north, at Sahiwal (in Punjab province) – 'Shahi Tump' in the valley of Kej (Mekran) in the Baloch territory and 'Judeiro Daro' in the Pathan region of Balochistan.

Now let us go back a little more in time. The intrusion of the Aryans started in waves after waves in about 3000 BC, and continued for about 1000 years - those Aryans were not a single tribe or race but they were comprised of an assortment of tribes from the Central Asia. So in first instance, those Aryans settled in the upper part of the mighty river; 'Sindh/Indus'
namely, 'Sindh Valley' or 'Indus Valley' - which were then known as 'Saptasindhva' or 'Sapta Sindhus' meaning, land of the seven rivers (i.e.
Sutlaj, Bias, Ravi, Chenab, Jehlum, Sindh and the now extinct river Saraswati).

Celebrated writer, Bode Roy Punjabi quoting the illustrious researcher, Dr.
Abinas Chandra Das writes as under, "The land in which the Vedic Aryans lived is called in Rigveda by the name of Saptasindhva or the land of seven rivers, which includes the Indus or Sindhu with its principal tributaries on the west and the saraswati on the east. The Ganges and the Yamunas have certainly been mentioned once or twice but they have not at all been included in the computation of the seven rivers that gave the country its name."

Bode Roy Punjabi writes in his book, 'Saptasindhva' as under:
"Thus the area now forming Kashmir, the Punjab, the NWFP, Eastern Balochistan and Sind (h) was the area of Aryan Settlement".

Distinguished scholar, A.L. Bhasham writes in his famous Book, 'The Wonder that was India' - "Of the two river systems that of the Indus, now mainly in Pakistan, had the earliest civilization and gave its name to India. The fertile plains of the Punjab watered by the five great tributaries of the Indus had a high culture over two thousand years before Christ, which spread down the lower course of the Indus as far as the sea."

Similar is the account of the eminent research scholar, Sri Swami Sivananda in his research work, 'Origin and Significance of the term Hindu' in the following words:

"That part of the great Aryan race which migrated from Central Asia, through the mountain passes into India, settled first in the districts near the river Sindhu, now called the Indus, on the other side of the river. The Persians pronounced the word Sindhu as Hindu, and named their Aryan brethren Hindus. Hindu is only a corrupt form of Sindhu".

So merely as a common noun from the word "Sapta Sindhus" and simply for the reason of their new common nativity and to denote those Aryan settlers as
whole: they were first called as 'Sindhus' and 'Sindhi' in some of the local and eastern languages. And exactly for the same reason and as a common noun from the word 'Indus' they were called as Indians in most of the western languages. Thus none of those Aryans was neither Hindu nor that was possible, for Hinduism was not yet handcrafted.

Similarly the heartland of the Indus Valley Civilization, making a part of Pakistan is called even today as Sindh (i.e. Sindh Province) and its natives as 'Sindhi' because of the river 'Sindh/Indus' - exactly as natives of Punjab (i.e. land of five rivers) are called Punjabis, as a common noun.

Now how the erstwhile common noun 'Sindhus' transmuted subsequently into the
'Hindus'- the proper noun - that implied subsequently, one pertained to Hinduism. Or to simplify this question a little more, how the then simple common noun 'Sindhus' from the word 'Sindh', corrupted into 'Hindus,' the complicated noun - which turned into as a certain creed specific.

In fact the word Hindu has no link whatsoever with the subsequently developed creed, 'Hinduism'. Because the emerge of the word 'Hindu' was far more ancient than the surge of the creed, 'Hinduism'. And as a matter of fact the word 'Hinduism' have been coined far more later (i.e. round about after 2000 years) for the creed of the 'caste-rule' (i.e. Vern Ashram) by the western orientalists - and thus the word 'Hindu' had not been derived from Hinduism, for that could have not been done.

The word Hindu is admittedly a corruption of 'Sindhu' - a native of 'Sindh - Valley' (i.e. Indus - Valley). And today also the local natives of Sindh, in Pakistan, are called Sindhi, as a common noun from the word Sindh; the local name of the river Indus. Actually when the closest neighbors Iranians invaded the India, in about first half of the first BC millennium, they pronounced the word 'Sapta Sindhus' as 'Haft Hindus', for in Persian language the word 'haft' also denotes seven - and as such the word 'Haft-Hindus' is the Persian corruption of 'Sapta Sindhus' the then name of the Sindh Valley or Indus Valley. In this way if the word 'Hindu' is admittedly the corruption of 'Sindhu' - then the word 'Hindi' is obviously the corruption of Sindhi.

And this is the reasons that all Arabs even today call, all the Indian Muslims, including the Pakistanis as 'Hindi' - whereas the believers of caste rule specifically as Hindus - exactly and similarly the whole world call all the natives of India as Indians but the believers of the caste rule (i.e. Hinduism) as Hindus. Even the Hindus do not and cannot dare to use the word Hindu for other than them. The meaning of 'Hindu' and 'Hindi'/'Indian'
are so distinct right from the birth of Vern Ashram that in Arabic language the words 'Hindu' or 'Hindukki' are used simply for the believer of Hinduism
- and its plural has been 'Hindoos' or 'Hanadic' - whereas the plural of the word Hindi (i.e. Indian) has also been clearly distinct as 'Hanud' - from the former plural.

Now let us go a little deeper. Actually after about 2000 years of the Aryans mega migration, round about in 1000 BC, with the passage of time, some of the Aryan Settlers, like other ancient idol worshipers developed a 'sculpture based culture' and as such some of them first attracted to, then converted to and finally adopted that culture as a creed. So those were the circumstances, in about 1000 BC, when the metamorphosis of the 'sculpture based culture' into the Vern Ashram (i.e. Caste Rule) was underway - and the newly debuted 'sculpture based creed' thus started rising up and swelling up in the shape of Vern Ashram. But as yet, no one had ever called that culture or creed as Hinduism - they used to use the word 'Vern Ashram' (i.e. caste
rule) and subsequently 'Sanatan Dharma' (i.e. the Eternal Way) for the newly emerged creed, as evident from their basic most, primitive most and the sacred most, four religious books, the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda and the Atharva-Veda of Hindus. And it is for the reason of this most primitiveness - that they are also known as childhood of Hinduism.

Thus with the passage of further time, when some more extraordinary distinction in regard of the ethnicity as well as in beliefs, inter-se the Aryan Settlers, developed and protruded, then the common nouns, the 'Aryans'
and the 'Sindhus' or 'Hindus' lost its original sense and were therefore no more meaningful or conclusive, for all the Aryan Settlers did not adopt Vern Ashram (i.e. caste rule) or the sculpture based culture.

Those Aryan Settlers who adopted the sculpture based culture, as his/her creed, were called the 'Hindus' specifically as a proper noun and the rest simply the 'Sindhi'/'Hindi' in the local as well as in the eastern languages and the 'Indians' in the western languages, as a common noun. So one can say that as the 'Hindus' word is the corrupted form of Sindhus - similarly the 'Hindus people' are the corrupted (viz converted) form of some Aryans, who adopted the Vern Ashram (i.e. caste rule) as their creed. Thereafter when the Aryans Settlers spread throughout the whole sub continent, the whole subcontinent was also emerged as 'Barsagheer-Hind' in the eastern languages and as 'Indian subcontinent' in the western languages - and its natives as Hindis/Indians respectively - irrespective of their different religions, creeds and ethnicities, for the words Hindi/Indian simply denoted the native of Hind/India - and had nothing to do with any religion - whereas to denote believers of the 'caste rule' or 'Vern Ashram' the specific word 'Hindus'
was/are used for them, in all the languages of the world.

Exactly as the word "Asians" implies natives of Asia, irrespective of the creed of the Asians. Even today all the natives of India are called Indians but the believers of Islam in Bharat are called the Indian Muslims, the believers of Christianity are called the Indian Christians, and the believers of Sikhism are called the Indian Sikhs and so forth: as I said earlier that Aryans were not a single tribe but were multitude of tribes and were of multi-ethnical origin - hence after the mass exodus when the difference in their credos developed with the passage of time - then the word Hindu turned as creed specific and the word Sindhi/Hindi or Indian kept its originality, as nativity specific.

Actually Hindus never had any specific name for their creed. Now we must ask the question, why the Hindus creed had been nameless right from the beginning? In fact firstly, in the beginning the Hindus creed did not come out as a regular religion - secondly, unlike all other man-made creeds, Hindus never had any founder persona, neither in the sky nor on earth, as a founder of their creed. Hence no one was there to be attributed to their creed. Conversely, the grand spiritual leaders; Gautama Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, Lao zi (Lao Tzu) , Nataputta Mahavira, Joseph Smith, Guru Nanak Sahib, have been the Founder Personas of Buddhism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Jainism, Mormonism, Sikhism respectively.

Actually in the start the creed 'Vern Ashram' was simply a jumble of some rituals of the assorted peoples, in the shape of a culture. Subsequently and gradually it transformed into a larger blend of the available respective cultures, pertaining to the host of Aryan Settlers along with the host of the local Dravidians - which was emerged subsequently as Vedic Civilization, solely based on the Vern Ashram (i.e. the caste rule). And as such it was their native name Hindu, wherefrom the name of their creed was coined after about more than two millenniums of the surge of the creed.

A renowned Hindu scholar, Nirad C. Choudhry writes in his book, "The Continent of Circe":

"I am surprised to find how many people even among those who are well-educated think that we are Hindus because we have a religion called Hinduism and that word is comparable to 'Christian' or 'Muslim'. It had no such association for the Hindus or for their neighbors in former times. This crept in when Modern European Orientalists began to study the religions of India. They found that the Hindus had no other name for the whole complex of their religious feelings, beliefs and practices except the phrase 'Sanatan Dharma or the Eternal Way. They did not have even a word of their own for religion in European sense; and so the Orientalists coined the word Hinduism to describe that complex of religion. Actually we Hindus are not Hindus because we follow a religion called or understood as Hinduism; our religion has been given the very imprecise label 'Hinduism' because it is the jumble of the creeds and rites of a people known as Hindus after their country. On this analogy the Greek religion might be called Hellenism and Graecism".

Another renowned Hindu scholar, Pundit Shiv Kishan Kaul writes in his book, 'Wakes up Hindus':

"The word Hinduism derived from Hindu, a Corruption of Sindhu. The Punjab in Vedic times was called Sapta Sindhu (The land of seven rivers). This was pronounced by Iranians as, Haft Hindu and so the inhabitants of the Punjab came to be called Hindus by Muslims invaders."

To tell the truth, the Indus River is exclusively a 'Muslim River' (though I use this term as a phrase) -for, which has been as steadfast as a Muslim should have been. In spite of all the hurdles and the unjust divide of our owned India, this mighty, impressive and striking river after forming its identity as such has been flowing throughout in the now Muslim India (i.e.
the Pakistan) - and by hinting towards the destiny it ends its journey at the Arabian Sea, in the Ocean - the Ocean which itself is not only being contributed by the former with fresh water but has also been contributed with an identity and name (i.e. the Indian Ocean) by this splendid and refined river.

The phrase I have used for the Indus River can be judged not only from its nativity but also from its originality, openheartedness, cleanliness and candidness. This superb River has also given identity to many other entities, nations and regions, so openly - and none of them has any nexus whatsoever with Hinduism. For instance,

Indian Ocean: the ocean wherein the mighty river, Indus is emptied and has been swimming therein, since the time immemorial.

Indonesia; a Muslim country comprised of nearly 13000 islands, situated in the Indian Ocean.

Indochina; the now Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam etc. - once were comprised of a peninsula called Indochina, for its inhabitants had been or considered to be the cross-breed of Indians and Chinese.

West Indies; the chain of islands, Jamaica, Barbados, Dominica etcetera - which includes about 23 entities, situated in the Caribbean Sea, to the west of the Indian Ocean - given this reason the Indonesia along with Madura and south Borneo were once called East Indies, for they were located in the southeast of the Indian Ocean.

Red Indians; the Native Americans or the aborigines, inhabiting north and South America, they are considered as the Indians who crossed the now Bering Strait (in Atlantic) through the ice-bridge in the ancient ice age of Pleistocene epoch. So the main region of those Red Indians has been given officially, the name and status of 'Indiana State' as the 19th state of the USA. In this regard my reliance is on the following borrowed excerpts from the world class, the world's best selling and amazing Multimedia Encyclopedia; 'ENCARTA.' :-

"The Native Americans of North America are believed to be descendants of the Mongoloids, early hunters and gatherers who migrated from Asia to North America in waves possibly from as early as 30,000 BC. These Stone Age peoples crossed an ice-age land bridge across what is now the Bering Strait during the Pleistocene epoch". Furthermore, "Indiana entered the Union on December 1, 1816, as the 19th state. Three 19th-century US presidents—William Henry Harrison, his grandson Benjamin Harrison, and Abraham Lincoln—lived in Indiana for substantial periods.
Manufacturing became the chief economic activity in the early 20th century, but at the start of the 1990s the state was also a major producer of farm commodities, especially corn, soya beans, and pigs. The state's name, which refers to Native Americans ("Indians"), was coined in the 1760s and applied to a private tract of land in Pennsylvania; the name was officially adopted when Indiana Territory was formed in 1800. Indiana is known as the "Hoosier State". Its major cities are Indianapolis (the capital), Fort Wayne, Evansville, Gary, South Bend, and Hammond".
I also reproduce the opinions of the world-renowned geographer, Hecataeus
(550-476) of Miletus, an ancient Greek city of Ionia, on the west coast of Asia Minor (part of modern Turkey) - and of the world-renowned historian, Herodotus (484-425 BC), considered as "father of history" - in the following borrowed words:

'India was the country in the neighborhood of river Indus and this was the ultimate country on the face of the earth. Beyond this lay the "Deserta Incognita" unknown desert or "Marusthali" (i.e. place of death).

It shows that the now Pakistan was India and not the now Bharat.
When it is an established fact that Hind/India have been derived from the grand river Sindh/Indus - now even in the NWFP & northern regions of Pakistan, the name of this river has been 'Aba Sin (viz Aba Sindh) - meaning, father of rivers - then this name is exclusively our entity and property and hence amongst other prides, this also must be our sanctity and identity, not of others who has no right whatsoever upon it - and we alone have the right to snatch it back - and rename our country as 'Islamic Republic Of India' (viz Islami Jamhoria Hind)- or 'Muslim India' to be more appropriate.

The reasons for this urge and drive are very compelling and pressing, for
instance:

1.The foremost and the prime question has been that what is the nationality and what is our nationality? In my view every live nationality, in this world has two inescapable ingredients, the soul (i.e. the religion or I call it the religion nationality) and the body (i.e. the region - or I call it the regional nationality or identity or the nativity) - as these have been inevitable for a living being. The soul can't stay without corporeal body and a corporeal body can't move without soul - both have been concomitant inter se inexorably. The nationality shall be not robust if it lacks either the soul (i.e. the religion or religion nationality) or body (i.e. the region - or the regional nationality or identity). Religion has been optional, hence can be chosen and be changed any time - but nativity has been non-optional, hence can neither be picked out, nor can be replaced.
This is why that after embracing Islam, the soul or nucleus of nationality of the Arabs, Persian and Turks and many others, changed forthwith - and they all became Muslims - but so far their nativities or regional identities were concerned all of them have been intact and will be intact - hence they are the Arab Muslims, the Persian Muslims, the Turks Muslims and so forth.
So much so that the renowned Companions of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAW), Bilal (RA) has been Bilal Habshi, (RA) - (i.e. Bilal the Ethiopian, RA), Salman (RA) has been Salman Farsi (RA) - (i.e. Salman the Persian, RA), Suhaib (RA) has been Suhaib Rumi (RA) - (i.e. Suhaib the Roman, RA) - and one of the Ummahat-ul-Mu'mineen (RA), namely, Omul Mu'mineen, Maria (RA), Mother of Ibrahim (RA), the Prophet Mohammad's son, has been 'Maria Qibthiya' (i.e. Maria the Egyptian, RA) - and Malka of Saba, (also as Sheba) AS (i.e. Sabaean Queen, AS) has been 'Malka Saba,' AS (Queen of Saba) - even after they all embraced Islam. As such the 'Muslim Millat' or Muslim Ummah ( i.e. The Muslim Grand Nation) has been composed of Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, Turk Muslims, Chinese Muslims, Russian Muslims, Berber Muslims, Tartar Muslims and so much and so forth. And when the reference is to be made to the 'Muslim Grand Nation' – 'Muslim Millat' or 'Muslim Ummah' (viz the universal Muslim Nation) - then the whole world is their 'Grand Nativity'. Because Islam, Qur'an, and the last Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) has not been a race, color, ethnic, region or nation specific but has been universal from the day one - and therefore second ingredient of nationality i.e. nativity for the Muslim Grand Nation shall also be universal, namely the entire world.

Faith specific name, Muslim is common noun; inasmuch region specific name (viz geographic specific name) is proper noun for a Muslim. This is one of the edges the Muslim Nation has got over other nations, for there is no conception of 'Millat' or 'Ummah' in 'them' - because in Muslims the nucleus of their nationalities is the same i.e. Islam - whereas in 'them' both the nuclei as well as the peripheries are different.

In seeking the answer of the question my reliance is on the Holy Qur'an: "O MANKIND! LO! WE HAVE CREATED YOU FROM MALE AND FEMALE - AND HAVE MADE NATIONS - AND TRIBES THAT YE MAY KNOW ONE ANOTHER. LO! THE NOBLEST OF YOU, IN THE SIGHT OF ALLAH, IS THE BEST IN CONDUCT. LO! ALLAH IS KNOWER - AWARE."
(SURAH AL-HUJURAT, 39-13).

By going through and thinking through this Holy Verse along with many others relevant to the subject - what I have gathered, as a petty student of the Holy Qura'n there from is that in classification of the humankind the inter se distinction among the nations has been emphasized more overtly while sorting out the various nations. Ergo the following are the criterions/yardsticks for the classification of the mankind:

A- Humanity; humanity has been used as the first criterion or the yardstick to distinguish the human race from all other beings, as evident from the addressee as well as from the discloser of the commonality of their ascendant, in the Holy Verse. And as such it has been established, firstly; that as human beings we all are one and the same entity - and secondly; that human being is second to none vis-à-vis other beings.

B- Loyalty to a faith; now to define and distinguish the humankind inter se, faith has been used as the second criterion or yardstick - and thus the believers of Islam has been declared as the "Muslims" - whereas the believers of Judaism are called Yehuda i.e. Jews - the believers of Christianity are called Nasara or Nazareth or Christians - and so forth were the nations of Aad, Thamud and Sab-i-een accordingly in the ancient periods.


C- Identity or Nativity; But as obvious from the day one that the humankind at variance in religions are found all over the world at variance in regions or nativities - so solely on the basis of the loyalty towards a particular religion without giving reference to the respective region or nativity, the inter se distinction could have neither been made in Muslims nor in the believers of other religions. Hence due to this reason, in the aforementioned Holy Verse as I have been referring to, the most emphasis has been given on the inter se distinction of the various nations and tribes.
Now so for the tribes are concerned even in them the inter se distinction cannot be established without giving reference to the respective progenitor or nativity thereto. Hence in the same way, nations of same belief all over the world could not be distinguished without giving reference to the respective region or nativity. And thus it is for this reason that the words nations and tribes have been used in plural, in the Holy Verse, which signifies that nations as well as the tribes have been more than one. Thus to distinguish the Muslims inter se as well as the Non-Muslims, the respective religion along with the respective region (i.e. regional identity or nativity) has to be used inevitably to consolidate the definition as well as the distinction of various Muslim nations as well as the Non-Muslims all over the world, for the foremost purpose of the aforementioned Holy Revelation has been stated as "THAT YE MAY KNOW ONE ANOTHER". To stress a little more I mean to submit that neither alone a 'religion' could be made the sole basis for a living and a distinctive nationality - and nor alone the 'regional identity' or nativity. And ergo both the definitions of nationality unleashed by the two most celebrated and great scholars, at the juncture of formation of this country; one on the sole basis of religion and the second on the lone basis of region (i.e. regional identity or nativity) with due respect were suffering extremely from extremism. Thus in my opinion both the religion as well as the region (i.e. nativity) has been as vital for a living and a distinctive nationality, as a nucleus and its periphery have been vital for a viable atom. And it is due to this cause that even today the people of Germany, America, United Kingdom, France, Sweden, and Russia etc are as different nations simply on account of their different nativities - as the Buddhists, Sikhs and Chinese have been, on account of their difference in religions as well as in nativities.

Now the next part of my question is what is our nationality?

1. In our case too of course Islam has been the Soul or Nucleus of our nationality and the 'Indian' nativity or 'regional identity' has been the natural body or the natural periphery of our nationality. We could choose the religion of our choice, that we have done well, but we can neither choose the nativity nor substitute, for that is not a matter of choice or substitution - it is always granted - and we have been bestowed upon, the 'Indian' nativity or Indian identity - the original most, the natural most, the ancient most, the magnificent most and the elegant most. We have been Muslims by religion and Indian by region/nativity. As such we have been 'Indian Muslims' - as others are Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, Turks Muslims. Chinese Muslims, Russian Muslims, Tajak Muslims, Uzbek Muslims, Kazakh Muslims, Indonesian Muslims, Maldivian Muslims, Sri-Lankan Muslims, Moroccans Muslims, Bosnian Muslims, Albanian Muslims and so on. And if all the Muslim nations, the world over have retained and have been retaining their respective nativity/identity, they have had long before embracing Islam - why we the Muslims of this subcontinent could not retain ours?
Whereas in fact our nativity has been ours exclusively and has been more original and natural, as compared to others. But the funny thing has been that we were staunch and sturdy 'Indian Muslims' at 12.00 midnight, on August 13, 1947 and before - but a little after 12.01 AM, August 14, 1947, all of a sudden we became Pakistani Muslims - altogether a new brand and breed. And as such we stunned and shunned all the pride we had been the custodians thereto, for around one millennium. This is an unprecedented national tragedy and a comedy simultaneously.

2. Every live nationality in the world has been comprised of a nucleus (i.e.
the religion) and the periphery (i.e. the identity/nativity). Hence we observe that there have been, Arab Christians, American Christens, Russian Christians, Bharati Christians and so forth.

3. The secular Turkey (or say with the feeble soul of religion) can survive easily but the most religious Chechnya and the Palestine (without the control of their respective regions) could not - or survive hardly.
<b>
4.We as Indian Muslims had no free homeland after fall of the Muslim Indian Empire and before the freedom - but yet we were a formidable nation, as 'Indian Muslims' and as such we had retained our identity and nationality, though we were in search of free homeland desperately. But the amusing thing is that the moment we seized a marvelous homeland - we left behind our 'religion nationality' as well as 'regional identity' and lost. And hence before the freedom we were in search of a homeland: but after the freedom, our homeland has been in the search of her nation. Simply because of the simulated and childish replacement of our natural nativity - and this is why, still we are bewildering in the search of identity and nationality.

5. By fabricating and calling ourselves as Pakistani Muslims, instead of Indian Muslims, we severed and cut off the root of the two-nation theory on one hand and admitted the 'Bharati Hindus' as 'Indian Hindus' and the left over Muslims i.e. the 'Indian Muslims' as Bharati Muslims, in Bharat, on the other.

6. As Indian Muslims we had played the most dominant, commanding and vital role as an impressive nation in the world history - but simply because of the concoction and impersonation in respect of our nationality, no one knows even today, what is Pakistan and who are Pakistanis? And all the historical pride belonging to the word India was bequeathed to the stingy Hindus, our bloodthirsty archenemy.

7.The word, Pakistan had never ever been a civilization, a culture, a creed or even a city, let alone a country.</b>

8.The word, Pakistan has no real historical meaning and had never ever been a word or entity that had been written or entered in any dictionary or encyclopedia in any part of the world.

9.All the Muslims on either side of the border admit with pride that they have been the Indian Muslims but none of them could understand to admit with pride that how they became Pakistani Muslims and the left behind Muslim brethren as Indian Muslims, hence an identity perplexes developed - and so due to the absence of natural nativity, the artificial locality has been contrived, retrieved and erected instead.

10.The word 'Pakistan' has been as alien for us as it has been for the rest of the world, hence some intentionally while others unintentionally pronounce it incorrectly - very important leaders even pronounce the 'Pakistanis' as the "Pakis" internationally, which is a nude slang.

11.The Bharati Hindus and the Zionists Jews in particular, because of their old roguish habits, have been mispronouncing it in a more offending way as "phukis" and as such throughout the internet they have been using the slang "pakis" as nickname for Pakistanis. Both the Hindus and Jews have the old genetic nexus and hence both have been the 'higher-ranking' slangy twins.
Hence once the Almighty Allah had to intervene when the elderly slangy Jews, by giving extra stress and strain malafidely to the word "Ra'ina" (i.e.
Listen to us) - while talking to the Prophet Mohammad (SAW), used to mispronounce the same as "Ra'aina" which was a slang - hence the Almighty Allah commanded the believers forthwith in these words; "o ye who believe, say not (unto the prophet): "listen to us" (ra'ina) but say look upon us"
(viz unzurna). (Surah Al-Baqarah 2-104). Thus one can gauge how much has been the offensive effect of the mispronounced words?

12.The Hindus were in a high dilemma about the name of the left over country, Bharat, at the time of partition - but it was the late Choudhry Rehmat Ali who answered their dilemma within no time on one hand and created a hitch for us on the other.

13.No one including Choudhry Rehmat Ali has/had the right to propose a name for the nation simply for entertainment and amusement - like a big Choudhry use to propose a name for the newly born baby in their outcaste, in 'pind'
(village) - they call them, 'kami kamin (i.e. base-born persons), as 'nathu'
or 'khairi'.

14.China, Germany, Korea, Yemen and many others have been mangled for centuries but yet none of the part has ever deserted its nativity.

15.Others introduce themselves by disclosing their nationality whereas we confuse others by disclosing ours (viz Pakistanis).

16.Many in us skip even today by saying that nothing lies there in the name
- and that a flower be a flower and a filth be a filth regardless of name - but it lacks any temptation for sanity to be subscribed thereto, for they do forget that it is always a certain name that sprouts the sense of the essence in the first instance - and this is why that name of a certain flower spring forth its pleasant fragrance in the first instance. A goodwill name does not come by overnight - it takes centuries and years that a goodwill name is established and recognized. And here I raise a simple question; can the names of flower and filth can be bartered inter-se?

17.The oneness of Allah Almighty is beyond doubt - but similarly His 99 names, He has preferred for Himself are also beyond question - this is enough to unfold the importance of name.

18.The Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAW) had always preferred to hide even his severe miseries but He (SAW) could not do so while He (SAW) was embarking upon the Hijrah (viz emigration) in 622 AD from 'Mecca the Magnificent' to 'Medina the Luminous'. His aching words even today can cause drooping. While leaving for 'Medina the Luminous' He (SAW) remarked in the throbbing words:
"O Mecca, I swear by Allah that you are the loveliest to me in the whole world and similar are you before Allah as well - had your natives not compelled me I would have not left you ever"

19.Religion has been the best rope to be tied with and to keep tight and unite a nation of course but still even a wise woodcutter never ties the bundle of the wood with a single rope, he usually apply three ropes, lest the one let loose, in the intricate journey.

20.Religion has been the greatest integrating force indeed but its fire (i.e.
warmth and excitement) needs constant fanning by a very fabulous, extraordinary and legendary pious leader - who does not come into being so frequently but rather very very rarely - whereas so far nativity is concerned, it has been self fanning and self fueling all the time, like the jungle fire.

21.Religion always needs nice and virtuous people to keep them blended together - but in case of nativity, even the beasts have been the most loyal and devoted followers. You may throw away a cat for hundred times but it will never leave her native home.

22.Every living being has been granted with two legs at least, no one, if normal has ever been seen as a single footed, for no one can stay at a single foot, like a Hindu jogi (i.e. Hindu ascetic) for longer - so how a nation could stay on a single foot for so longer, particularly when the nation has been surrounded by, with a little exception (i.e. of China, Sri
Lanka) - the evil most neighbors, which have been pushing the nation right from the very beginning. So this was one of the reasons due to which our country was dismembered by the over time pushing neighbor, the bulky and Brahman Bharat, which herself has been fastened foxily, simply with the rope of 'nativity' we left behind.

23.It was the region and not the religion who outfitted the poor Vietnamese to fight for 10 long years against the ruthless US Empire and put down their 30 million human heads, 15 % of its total population in the ordeal of Vietnam War.

24.Two nations at variance in religion can live with peace, provided none of them breaches the region of the other e.g. Egypt & Israel, Pakistan & China
- Iran & Bharat - Bangladesh & Bharat - but they can't live in peace if any one of them breaches the region of the other, despite the similarity in their religions - e.g. Turkey & Kurds - Iran & Kurds – Iraq & Kurds.

25.Religion has been but not always a strong source of convergence - some time it become the source of divergence, when it falls in the hands of illiterate fanatics, hence a nation must be always kept tied with the second rope viz nativity too, for none can leak out there from.

26.Muslims clerics have been successful to split up the Muslims nationhood even within a country by sowing the seeds of petty religious discrepancies amongst them - but has not been successful thus far to split up the nativity. For instance: Iranians Muslims have been bisected insofar as their religion (given the myth of Sunni & Shiite sects) is concerned - but none, including the vocal clerics have thus far been successful to move them a little from their nativity - the regional identity viz Iran. Thus they may be divergent in terms of outfits but convergent in terms of nativity. The same dismal is the case of nearly every Muslim state.

27.To re-catch, reclaim the image and maintain the lineage with the past glory it is the only way out to rename our country with reference to the context.

Now the mind haunting question, I know is; how I exclude the Hindus from the Indian nativity?

The reasons are so many but to cut short, I submit a few:

They have never ever named their country India before, even before the Christ and before Ashoka the Great.

Even today they believe the Indian Subcontinent as 'Bhartavarsha' right from the demise of their Rajah Bharata, far more before the Christ, so they must not be bashful to follow their belief.

In their constitution their official name has been Bharat, right from the beginning and never India so they must not feel embarrassed to follow their constitution.

The English translation for Bharat has never been India so they have no right to play with the syntax of an international language.

If they like antiquity then they should replace their country name by the oldest one viz 'Jambu Dvipa'.

The name "Hindustan" is purely a Persian word and the name "India" is purely its English version - and none of them has anything to do with Sanskrit at least - the suffix "stan" has always been used exclusively by Muslims as suffix with the names of Muslim countries, e.g. Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Daghistan, Kirghizistan, Afghanistan and hence were used by Muslims as well their rulers in the case of India during the 1000 years Muslim rule.

The same is the case of so many Provinces in Muslim countries: Balochistan, Waziristan, Tabristan Gharjistan, Khozistan, Arministan, Nooristan, Sajistan etc. Whereas both, the original name "Bharata" and its corruption the now "Bharat" have had its origin from Sanskrit.

They have neither any share in, nor any regard for the river Sindh/Indus - rather they have been jealous and envious towards it, hence they have no right to get share and regard there from.

Their own Hindu and the most sacred rivers have been 'Brahmaputra' (son of Brahma in Sanskrit) - (or Yarlung Zangbo) & her son rivers, the Ganges and Yamunas; hence they should borrow a name there from, if they like their own rivers.

Hindus have been 99% in Nepal but they have never claimed the name India, for they know that they or their creed have no connection whatsoever, with the India or Indian nativity - and they have been proud of their own nativity namely, 'Nepalese' - which further cements the fact that Hindus, have nothing to do with the word India. *(The End)*



*Bibliography:*
1-'Tafheem-ul-Qur'an' by Maulana Sayyed Abul Aala Maududi
2- 'Tadabur-ul-Qur'an' by Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi
3- Tarjumamul-Qur'an by Maulana Azad
4- 'Massla Qoumiyat' by Maulana Sayyed Abul Aala Maududi
5- 'Kharavela and His Times' by C.R. Mishra 6-'Freedom at Midnight' by co-authors, Mr. Larry Collins & Mr. Dominique Lapierre
7- 'Saptasindhva' by Bode Roy Punjabi
8-'The Wonder that was India' by A.L. Bhasham 9-'The Continent of Circe' by Nirad C. Choudhry
10- 'Wakes up Hindus' by Pundit Shiv Kishan Kaul 11-'Indian Muslims - A political History' by Ram Gopal 12-'Evolution of NWFP' by Rai Bahadur DIWAN CHAND OBHRAI 13-'Dimension of Pakistan Movement' by Professor Mohammad Munawar 14-'The Emergence of Pakistan' by Choudhry Mohammad Ali 15-'India wins Freedom' by Maulana Azad
16- 'The Indian Musalmans' by W. W. Hunter 17-'Pathway to Pakistan' by Choudhry Qaliquzzaman 18-'The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent' by Ishtiaq Qureshi
19- 'The Great Dived' by HV Hodson
20- 'Ancient India' by RC Dutt
21- 'The Meaning of Pakistan' by Sheikh Mohammad Ashraf
22- 'Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah -The Story of a Nation' by G. Allana
23- 'Hindu – Muslim Question' by Beni Prasad
24- 'The Muslim of British India' by P. Hardy
25- 'The Indus Saga' by Aitzaz Ahsan
26- 'The sacred writings of the world great religions' selected & edited by S. E. Frost, Jr., B.D, Ph.D.
27- 'Naqoosh-e-Iqbal' by Maulana Sayyed Abul Hassan Ali Nadvi 28-'A study of History' by Arnold J. Toynbee 29-'The Oxford History of India' by V A Smith 30-'History of the Ancient World' by Dr.F Korovkin
31- 'Early India & Pakistan to Ashoka' by Sir Mortimor Wheeler 32-'Ancient Pakistan' by Professor Ahmad Hassan Dani
33- 'Tarikh -e- Pak -wa- Hind', published by Talimi Adara Urdu Bazaar Lahore
34- 'Muhsan-e-Insaniyat' by Naeem Sadiqee 35-'Sirat Sarwar-e-Aalam' by Maulana Sayyed Abul Aala Maududi 36-'The Muslim Dilemma in India' by, M.R.A. Baig 37-'The Hindu-Muslim Question' by Professor Beni Prasad
38- 'Muslim Separation in India' by Dr. Abdul Hamid 39-'Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah: The Story of a Nation' by G. Allana
40- 'The meaning of Pakistan' by F.K Khan Durrani 41-'Last Years of British India' by Michael Edward 42-'The Menace of Hindu Imperialism' by Swamy Dharma Theerathaji Mahraj 43-'Know the Hindus, Jews of the Subcontinent' by Mian Amin-ud-Di44Hindustan on the Cross Roads by Professor Balraj Madhok 44-'Caste & Outcaste' by J E Sanjana
45- 'The Muslims of British India' by P. Hardy
46- 'Quaid-i-Azam As I knew Him' by M.A.H. Ispahani 47-'History of the Freedom Movement in India' by Dr. Tara Chand
48- 'Inside Congress' by Swami Shardhananda 49-'Loin Cloth-Laid Bare' by P.K. Dutt 50-'Mother India' by Katherine Mayo
51- 'My Country and My Rulers' by V.K Kulkarni 52-'The Sikh Demand Their Homeland' by Sadhu Swarup Singh 53-'A Warning to the Hindus' by Savitri Devi
54- 'Historical Role of Islam' by M.N. Roy 55-'Hindustan on the Cross Roads' by Professor Balraj Madhok.
56- 'Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan' by S M Ikram.
57-'India, a wounded Civilization' by V S Naipaul.
58-'Nationalities in India Politics' by M S Variranpillai.
59-'India – a Restatement' by Sir Coupland Reginald.
60- 'The Story of Civilization' by Will Durant.
61-'Verdict on India' by Beverly Nichols.
*The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily
reflect those of despardes.com* *Have Your Say
><despardes@optonline.net?subject=`Islamic Republic of India´>
* *Gajendra Singh, India*

Interesting and amusing piece. He (the author) is a good student. *Gary Rice, USA* India is a nation of people long before Moslems invaded. This is so funny because in 1947 the same people that allowed for the Modern Israel, one year later created Pakistan by carving out half of India for the Moslems. *Chappy Happy, India* Bharat is strong and will be strong all the time, you Pakistanis should know by now, how many times you have lost war with us. According to you, Muslims are top brand, they created historical sites, you forgot to add the barbaric acts Muslims commit all the time, Taj Mahal is one example. *William F. & Alice K. Mathews, USA* No comment on the text or politics of the article; just a strong sense that the point about "stan" being a term for Muslim lands is incorrect. It is my understanding that "stan" is old Persian for "Land of", and has no Muslim context; for instance Turks still call Greece "Yunanistan", and Greece is certainly not Muslim.

[Guest]

Feedback from a reader:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From: Chelvapila@aol.com
To: feedback@despardes.com
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:47:13 EST
Subject: .India is not Islamic republic.

India of yore and India of today remains Hindu. While it is true that the name Hindu is of recent origin but the culture and civilization it represents is far more ancient than any other including Greek, Egyptian and such . <b>Just because India suffered misfortune of  Moslem invasions who invariably earned notoriety as cruel and oppressive forcing many Hindus into Islam as part of their imperialism, India does not suddenly become Islamic</b>. The great heroes and saints many known and not so well known strove hard during these invasions to preserve India's native heritage and culture at a great sacrifice with equally great sagacity.

The result is part of India where Hinduism remained relatively intact is making tremendous progress and while that part of India now called Pakistan where Islamic mores dominate is sinking . <b>The great poets and scientists etc of Islamic background could flourish only in India that has Hindu milieu but not in Pakistan, ought to have opened eyes of any discerning observer as to where the virtues are</b>. Instead it is totally wrong to conclude that some how Islamic invasions have benefitted India because so many famous Moslems in India are making  positive contributions.

Furthermore India's history did not begin nor end with Islamic invasions or dominance at certain period of her long and hoary history. India before Islam was even born has made great contributions to world civilization and is continuing to do so after its dominance at least over major part has ended. In fact most of civlizational contributions be it in mathematics, other sciences , arts and philosophy date back to pre-Islamic period of Indian history.

And that is nothing to be wondered at because India's native culture and civlization, which is now known as Hindu encourages freedom of thought , expression , diversity and differences of opinion which are essential ingradients for research, experimentation thereby progress and development. <b>That is why great universities like Taxsila, Nalanda etc flurished in India prior to invasions and attacks of  likes of  Mohammed bin Qasim who is extolled as "First Pakistani". </b> And it may be noted here <b>during the entire period of Moslem rule not a single university or college was ever built by Moslem rulers. Instead the universities and libraries always bore the brunt of Islamic axe including both mentioned above. Even so called 'Akbar the great' burnt library in Chitore.</b>

But it was sagacious Hindus who saved and preserved India's hoary traditions. For instance when entire North India under Moslem domination was losing education, science and such, Madhwacharya brought what ever left, books and scholars and started a university in far south, Kerala. It is such valiant efforts that preserved for the world the ancient yet ever new heritage of humanity now we call Hindu. And its contributions fortunately have not dried up yet. And the greatness of Hindu civilization is such that even Moslems could develop their innate natural talents be it in music, arts or science without any hindrance or obstacles. And that is what is happening in India . But not so in parts of India violently partitioned rejecting this underlying sublime , spiritual and all encompassing civilization and culture which we today know as Hindu but has been present all along in India that is Bharat.

Best wishes,
G V Chelvapilla.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Are we heading towards a Christian India ? (Francois Gautier)

I am a westerner and a born Christian. I was mainly brought up in catholic schools, my uncle, Father Guy Gautier, a gem of a man, was the parish head of the beautiful Saint Jean de Montmartre church in Paris ; my father, Jacques Gautier, a famous artist in France, and a truly good person if there ever was one, was a fervent catholic all his life, went to church nearly every day and lived by his Christian values. There are certain concepts in Christianity I am proud of : charity for others, the equality of system in many western countries, Christ’s message of love and compassion….

<b>Yet, I am a little uneasy when I see how much Christianity is taking over India under the reign of Sonia Gandhi : according to a 2001 census, there are about 2.34 million Christians in India ; not even 2,5% of the nation, a negligible amount. Yet there are today five Christian chief ministers in Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh. </b>

One should add that the majority of politicians in<b> Sonia Gandhi’s closed circle are either Christians or Muslims. She seems to have no confidence in Hindus.</b> Ambika Soni, a Christian, is General Secretary of the Congress and a very powerful person, with close access to Sonia Gandhi. Oscar Fernandes is Union Programme Implementation Minister. Margaret Alwa is the eminence grise of Maharasthra.

Karnataka is virtually controlled by AK Anthony, whose secretaries are all from the Southern Christian association. Valson Thampu, a Hindu hater, is Chairman NCERT curriculum Review Committee, John Dayal, another known Hindu baiter, has been named by Sonia Gandhi in the National Integration Council ; and Kancha Ilaya, who hates Hindus, is being allowed by the Indian Government to lobby with the UN and US Congress so that caste discrimination in India is taken-up by these bodies.

I have nothing personnally against Sonia Gandhi, in fact she probably is a good person to win the alliegance of so many and certainly a loving mother . I share with her a love for India, like her I have lived in this country for over 30 years and like her I have married an Indian. But nevertheless, since she is at the top, Christian conversions in India seem to have gone in overdrive. More than 4,000 foreign Christian missionaries are involved in conversion activities across different states.

In Tripura, there were no Christians at independence, there are 120.000 today, <b>a 90% increase since 1991</b>. The figures are even more striking in Arunachal Pradesh, where there were only 1710 Christians in 1961, but 1,2 million today, as well as 780 churches!<b> In Andhra Pradesh, churches are coming-up every day in far flung villages and there was even an attempt to set-up one near Tirupati. </b>

<b>Many of the North-East separatist movements, such as the Mizo or the Bodos, are not only Christian dominated, but also sometimes function with the covert backing of the missionaries. </b>In Kerala, particularly in the poor coastal districts, you find “miracle boxes” put in local churches: the gullible villager writes out a paper mentionning his wish: a fising boat, a loan for a pukka house, fees for the son’s schooling… And lo, a few weeks later, the miracle happens ! And of course the whole family converts, making others in the village follow suit. During the Tsunami, entire dalit villages in Tamil Nadu were converted to Christianity with the lure of money.

It is true that there have been a few backlashes against missionnaries and nuns, particularly the gruesome muder of Staines and his two sons. But Belgium historian Konenraad Elst laments that « When over a thousand Hindus are killed and a quarter million Hindus ethnically cleansed in Kashmir, the world media doesn't even notice, but watch the worldwide hue and cry when a few local riots take place and a few missionaries are killed by unidentified tribal miscreants. <b>Christian Naga terrorists have been killing non-Christians for decades on end, and this has never been an issue with the world media, except to bewail the "oppression" of the Nagas by "Hindu India"</b> ».

More than 20,000 people have lost their lives to insurgency in Assam and Manipur in the past two decades. As recently as last week, four paramilitary Assam Rifles soldiers were killed in an ambush yesterday by the outlawed United National Liberation Front (UNLF).


The other day I was at the Madras Medical center, the foremost heart hospital in Madras. Right when you enter the lobby, you find a chapel, inviting everybody to pray, there are pictures and quotations of Christ everywhere and a priest visits all the patients, without being invited at all. Educational institutes and orphanages run by Christian organisations have become big business in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and other states. In Pondichery, where I am often, schools run by Adventists force their pupils, mostly Hindus, to say Christian prayers every day and attend mass. They are constantly fed anti Hindu slogans and biases under different forms, whether it is in history books, or discourses by priests during religious classes. Even in the elite schools or colleges, such as Saint Stephen in Delhi, Saint Xavier in Calcutta or Loyola college in Madras, where no direct proletization is attempted, Hindu pupils are subtly encouraged towards skepticism of their own religion, and admiration of whatever is Western. One should also say that it’s a one way traffic : remember the furor when MM Joshi wanted the Saraswati hymn to be sung at a Chief Ministers’ meet on education ? And imagine the uproar in secular India if portions of the Bhagavad Gita, this Bible for all humanity, were read at the beginning of the day in public schools ?

Sonia Gandhi said during the last National Integration Council meeting : « We are committed to ideological battle against communal forces which seek to destroy our diversity and polarise us. Certain parties promote polarisation and confrontation. And there are certain regimes in India which promote communalism ». <b>But is not actually the Congress under Mrs Gandhi, which is promoting communalism, by insidiously installing Christians and Muslims (and Marxists) everywhere, propping up Christian states, allowing a free hand too missionnaries and pressing for reservations for Christian Dalits and Muslims, as recently done in AP, in a nation of 850 million Hindus ? </b>

In my country, France, a Christian majority nation , it would be unthinkable to have Hindus – or even Indian born French for that matter – in so many positions of power. Impossible also to find a non-elected, non French, non-Christian person being the absolute ruler of the country behind the scene as Sonia Gandhi is in India. Indians like to say that the greatness of India is that it accepts a foreigner and a Christian like Sonia Gandhi. But is’nt it rather a weakness, and an aberration ? Can’t we find a worthy leader amongst one billion Indians ? This is an India where you see today Swami Avimukteshwarananda Saraswati of Dwarka Peeth, made to disembark from an Indian Airlines flight for carrying his holy dand, a thin bamboo stick which is a symbol of their spiritual designation, inside the aircraft cabin.
<b>
Are we heading then towards a Christian India under Sonia Gandhi’s helm? </b>It would be a tremendous loss not only to India, but also to the world. For in India, you find the only living spirituality left on this planet.


François Gautier
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

SWAMI RAMDEV AND HINDU DISUNITY
http://www.francoisgautier.com/Written%2...ramdev.doc

When CPI leader Brinda Karad attacks Swami Ramdev, she is not attacking Ramdev in particular, she is attacking Hinduism in general. This guru or that guru, makes no difference to her, she is against all gurus. Other gurus might think that they are safe, that Ramdev committed some sin, for which he is paying. But one of them will be next in the line of fire! Hindu gurus are all vulnerable in today’s India: the Shankacharya has already been hit, so has Satya Sai Baba, with accusations of paedophilia, Amrita Anandamayi has to live under the constant shadow of an hostile Kerala communist-dominated government, Dhirendra Brahmachari has been obliterated and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is periodically targeted as the ‘Guru of the rich’, the ‘glib Godman’ etc…

May I be forgiven my arrogance, but what Indian gurus have to understand is that for Indian communists, Hinduism is the N°1 enemy. Mao called religion ‘the opium of the people’. But for Indian communists, as for Britishers and Muslim invaders before them, what stands between their ambition for absolute power in India (and eventually a triumphant return of communism in the world – as Indian communists believe) is the hold that Hinduism has in the hearts of the rural people of India, who constitute 80% of this country. And still today, the humble farmer, from Uttar Pradesh to Tamil Nadu, has a natural understanding of the universality of God, who takes many names throughout the ages and can be Buddha, Jesus Christ, Ram or Mohamed and this humble farmer possesses the knowledge that there is something deeper than the skin and the mind, and a life beyond death. This knowledge is inbred, it is not in his head, not even in his heart, but in his or her genes transmitted from generation to generation.

Of course, the English speaking media is too happy to oblige Brinda Karat and come down hard on gurus with all kind of accusations, ranging from superstition to conman ship. There is of course a strong communist streak in most Indian newspapers, whether it is Frontline’s and the Hindu’s open allegiance to Communist China, or Brinda Karat being the sister of Prannoy Roy’s wife (not many people know that). Before Ramdev, they condemned the Shankacharya, before him Osho, before him Dhirendra Brahmachari. You can even go back to Sri Aurobindo, who was accused in the early 1900’s by the moderate Congress-controlled press to be a ‘fanatic’, when he was only demanding total independence from the British, long before Gandhi took it up. Accusation against Hinduism of superstition, brainwashing, ritualistic ignorance, date back from British missionaries and have been taken up today by communists. Yet, Hinduism, at least the Hinduism which goes beyond the rituals and becomes universal spirituality, has nothing to do with superstition and conman ship: it is all about science, knowledge and light. Look at pranayama, a science that has known for thousands of years how to harness breath and use it for controlling the mind, for a better, more healthy, more spititualized life. If you read Osho’s books today, you find a lot of solid common sense and wisdom. Sai Baba cannot have millions of disciples from the most humble to the presidents of India, without ‘something’ which is beyond superstition. So it goes for Amrita Anandmai, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Ramdev, or Guruma of Ganeshpuri.

And why should Brinda Karat target Ayurveda, the most ancient medical system in the world still in practice, the first medecine to realize 3000 years ago that plants and minerals offer the best cure, that many illnesses have a psychosomatic origin, the first to practice plastic surgery on patients? In India today, every third shop is an allopathic medical shop, whose profits go to western multinationals (hello Mrs Karad!) at a time when ayurvedic medicine is becoming increasingly popular in western countries, disillusioned by antibiotics and other heavy-handed medicines.

We are witnessing an interesting phenomenon in India today. Communists, Christians, Muslims and some of the Congress leadership (notice that Brinda Karat has written to Uttaranchal Chief Minister Narayan Dutt Tiwari to close down Swami Ramdev’s pharmacy), all of whom have nothing in common and often hate each other, are all united against Hinduism and Hindu leaders. Each one of course, have their own reasons for doing so. The Christians, under the leadership of people like John Dayal, want to convert the maximum of ‘heathens’ Hindus, as Jesus Christ is the only ‘true’ God that can save India; some of the Muslim leadership, here, in Pakistan, or even in today’s Bangladesh, still dream of 'Dar-ul-Islam', the House of Islam in South Asia; and Sonia Gandhi, maybe in a true spirit of secularism, maybe out of personal conviction, has chosen to ally her party with anti-Hindu forces. <span style='color:red'>Whatever it is, their unity makes them a powerful enemy.</span>

In contrast, look at Hindus: Swami Ramdev himself criticized Sri Sri Ravi Shankar live on TV, advising his followers not to practise the Art of Living breathing techniques. During the Tsunami relief operations in Nagapatinam, disciples of Amrita Anand Mayi and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar nearly came to blows over who would give relief to whom, instead of networking and uniting their efforts. And who came to the rescue Osho when he was maligned to death, or Brahmachari, when the entire press came down on him, of Sai Baba, when he was slandered, of the Shankacharya when he was thrown into jail, or of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, when Javed Akhtar accused him of coming ‘from a cave to live in a palace’ (and not from a palace to a cave, like the Buddha) ? None of the previously mentioned. Yet, Indian politicians can commit any crime, have any number of court cases against them, and they still end up as Union ministers and get positive press coverage .

The greatest curse of Hinduism throughout the ages has been its disunity - and more than that – its betraying each other. The British did not conquer India, it was given to them by its warring Hindu princes, jealous of each other. The same is true of Islam: the last great Hindu empire, that of Vijaynagar, was betrayed to the Muslims by the Lingayats. Today, if the combined forces of communists, Muslims, Christian fundamentalists and the Congress win, it will not be because of their strength and valour, but rather because of the disunity of Hindu leaders.

I know that there is something mysterious and unfathomable in the manifestation of the Divine upon earth, that each guru has a defined task to fulfil and that the combined task of all the gurus may solve the great puzzle that is this ignorant and suffering earth. Thus it may not be necessary for each guru to communicate with each other. But nevertheless, it is of the greatest urgency today that Hindu leaders unite to save Hinduism, rather than the ‘each one for his own’ that we see today. The Catholics have their Pope - and his word is binding to most catholics, whatever the resistance of some progressive leaders. Muslims have Mohamed’s words written 1400 years ago – and that binds all of Islam together, whatever the relevance of these words in the 21st century; India Communists have Marx and Lenin words, their opium, even if it has become irrelevant in Russia, Germany, and even in China; but the poor Hindus have nobody to refer to, so as to defend themselves.

Yet, if you take the combined people power of Satya Sai Baba, Amrita Ananda Mayi, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Swami Ramdev, Gurumayi of Ganeshpuri, the Shankacharya of Kancheepuram, and so many others I cannot mention here, it runs in hundreds of millions.

Again, in all humility and conscious of the limitation of my small mind, compared to some of these great gurus whom I have met, I propose that a Supreme Spiritual Council, composed of at least seven of the most popular Hindu leaders of India, be constituted, maybe under the leadership of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (with a yearly rotation of leadership), the most travelled of all these, the one who has disciples and teachers of all religions, both from India and the West. It would be a non-political body, and each group would keep its independence but nevertheless, it could meet two or three times a year and issue edicts, which would be binding to 850 millions Hindus in India and one billion over the world.

Then and then only, can this wonderful spirituality which is Hinduism, this eternal knowledge behind the outer forms, the wisdom to understand this mad earth and its sufferings, be preserved for the future of India, and for the future of humanity. I bow down to each of these gurus above-mentioned and to all those not mentioned, to Swami Vivekananda, the initiator of modern Hinduism, to Sri Aurobindo, the great avatar of the supramental and to all the great gurus who have graced over the ages, this wonderful and sacred land which is India and beseech them to hear my prayer: Hindus leaders, unite against the common enemy if you want the eternal Dharma to survive.

François Gautier

[ramana]

Renaming cities.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->English killing thirst for knowledge, says Kannada writer Ananthamurthy

English killing thirst for knowledge, says noted writer V Kumara Swamy


Neemrana, Mar 14 (PTI) <b>The man behind the move to change Bangalore's name to 'Bengaluru' Jnanpith Award winner U R Ananthamurthy believes that English is "killing the thirst for knowledge" in India and calls for immediate steps to inculcate the love of the local language in school going children.
"Globalisation is forcing us to become unilingual, and we are wilfully following it without even realising that we are losing a great deal in return," Ananthamurthy, also former Chairman of Sahitya Academy, told PTI at the recently concluded Afro-Asian Literary meet.</b>

As the Chairman of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), Ananthamurthy is trying to sell his <b>concept of "Common schools for Indian languages" to other members of the board. "Under this scheme, we will have schools having teachers of major Indian languages where children will have the option of choosing one language that they want to learn," he says.</b>

It is still at a conceptual state and further work needs to be done, but Ananthamurthy is hopeful that his idea will be accepted. <b>"In this way, we can influence the mind of children about the beauty of Indian languages and expand their horizons. It is important that we make them creative," </b>he emphasises.

<b>It was Ananthamurthy's suggestion that Karnataka change its capital's name from the anglicised "Bangalore" to "Bengaluru" which the government accepted despite heavy criticism.</b> "When the whole Kannada community calls it Bengaluru, I see no reason why others should not call it by the same name," he asserts. PTI
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The suggestion coming from UR Anthamurthy is welcome for he is as modern as one gets- Vamshavrikhsa etc. I like his idea of inculcating the Indian heritage and culture while the youth are still young. This way the image of India they have is that which is based on the Indian heritage. But care must be taken to ensure there are no denigration of the heritage or figures like Sant Tukaram.

I understand the need to reclaim the names to show the break with colonialism. However we should be wary of becoming anti-modern for that would turn India back on its progress. I am all for reclaiming or heritage but it should not be cause ofr regression.

[acharya]

Languages dont create regression. Languages are not anti-modern and English is not a sign of modernism.


During the period of the world war any European who did not know English was considered backward.


This social difference should not happen in India.

One way to change is to translate every book in ENglish to Indian language. At least one Indian language should have a version of the English book.

It can be done. Translation business can be built in Indiaand it can be big business. But there are groups in India who want to remove Indian languages from modern world.

[acharya]

<span style='color:red'>>>1) What characteristics of Hinduism lead Hindu's to feel ashamed about their creed?

As I initially said, much of what I said is intuitive and not (as far as I know) reinforced by any research. I will continue in that vein. I am not sure it is the characteristics of Hinduism itself that makes a certain subsection of Hindus feel ashamed, but rather the way they believe Hinduism in general is perceived in those parts of the world where they would like to stand out as being at the leading edge of society. It is probably a function of the ignorance of those they encounter. In general, this would mean a superficial understanding of our polytheistic milieu, although there is in fact a buffet of belief paths or philosophical streams to choose from. So: a lack of knowledge on the part of the foreigner and an unwillingness/inability (for various reasons) to explain on the part of the Hindu. But the foreigner holds the upper hand in this encounter, so the Hindu says “I was born a Hindu” with a semi-sheepish look….

>>2) What characteristics in Hinduism led to its defeat (atleast in part at the hands of islam) , withdrawal and the shame

I am not sufficiently well informed about this to comment confidently, but I do not think the characteristics of Hinduism were especially responsible. If anything, it was the characteristics of the ruling structures at the time – most of them kingdoms bickering with each other over local issues, while the storm was gathering at the gates. In this regard, Hinduism was probably no more responsible for the onslaught and severe defeats than was Islam to the Mongol attacks. It has been argued by some that the different codes of warfare had something to do with it: i.e. Hindus saw warfare as something of a sport in which everyone put down arms at sunset and camped, while obviously the Islamic invaders did not. But the extent of impact this particular tradition had is debatable. In fact, if the Hindus persisted with this habit after the first few encounters, they probably deserved what they got. I doubt it.

>>3) Why are some Hindu's still ashmaed of their creed - when India has been independent for more than half a century and is actually beginning to rise again.

Hindus generally grow up in a global climate where the prevalent worldview is monotheistic, where polytheism is systematically derided as heathen, pagan, intellectually unworthy, etc. For much of the past five decades, it has been taken pretty much for granted that polytheism can be derided casually. For the most part, neither Hinduism nor Buddhism were mentioned in most low- (or even high-) brow commentaries alongside the monotheistic religions as worthy counterparts – especially in the English language which the people I am referring to are used to. Only now things are beginning to change. Furthermore, history indicates that for over a millennium Hinduism has not been the dominant religion (even though it always was the majority) even in India. This shame is largely a concatenation of all these factors – plus the ground reality that most of these Indians are usually high achievers. The rather unworthy Hindu identity, in their view, does not match their own physical reality and cannot be used as a construct within which to explain their success, so the need for this disjointed approach when dealing with foreigners.

>>4) What can be done to evolve the creed so it modifies/eliminates the parts which cause this latent shame.

When it comes to religion, I strongly believe evolution is the solution and Hinduism allows that abundantly. Nothing needs to be “done” in a comprehensive interventionary sense, and certainly not in the sense of some religious gathering generating a policy directive or something (not likely in any case). This latent shame will gradually vanish when the encounter that I described in the bolded part above become more evenly balanced on a global scale, not just among the elites. The balance is already adjusting favourably and it will continue to do so. Partly, it will also be a function of the foreigner more inclined to be diplomatic. Money is a great equalizer.

</span>

[acharya]

<span style='color:red'>>>The problem with those who are apologetic or even ashamed of Hinduism is not that they feel that way – its that many such people find a special urge to justify their feelings as if they are rooted in sound logic and knowledge of the religion.

That is exactly my point - the bolded part in particular. The urge to justify, or however else one might want to phrase it, is IMHO one of the central issues... Associated with that, of course, is the need for approval...

Intuitively, it seems to me that a part of the problem maybe that quite a chunk of those who are actually in "apologetic" or "ashamed" mode may be assuming that all the negative things they've read about Hinduism in the English language is common knowledge worldwide; hence a need to explain (justify). Of course this is not the case. Most non-Indians I have encountered have just one association: Hinduism = many gods. End of story.

The knot here is that when our interface with the global community is largely of these types, i.e. those who themselves are of a fragile constitution in this area so to speak, the prospect of Hinduism getting a neutral airing is limited.

It is a difficult situation. Much depends on the starting point of the Hindu in question. As Ramanujan points out, one has every right to be ashamed, apologetic and ignorant about one's civilisational heritage (and yet be proud or not) and still regard himself as a hindu... I do not think this group forms the majority, however. One could even see that (i.e. shame as well as the resignation to being a Hindu nevertheless) as a strength of Hinduism... Smile

The true majority back home I believe are the ones I mentioned earlier, sons and daughters of the country in the country who don't give a crap what anybody thinks of anything... They're part of the Hindu ethos and that's that. Twisted Evil
</span>

[Guest]

Please sign the petition originated by Shri TRN Rao. Shri Francois Gautier, Shri S Kalyanaraman and others on United Hindu Dharma Samasthan.


The petition. addresssed to our Acharyas, is available at http://www.indiacause.com


Please sign.

[acharya]

Oxford honour for Centre for Hindu Studies

June 21, 2006 19:23 IST

The Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies has been granted the status of Recognised Independent Centre by the Oxford university. OCHS, the world's leading centre for the study of Hindu traditions, is one of two institutions given this status and bagged the honour after just seven years of teaching and conducting research into aspects of Hindu culture.

"It is an official recognition by Oxford University that we are its principal provider in the field of Hindu Studies, and thus a duly constituted member of the University's community," the Centre's Academic Director Gavin Flood said.

"Culture and religion are of fundamental public concern as we move into the 21st century. This may prove to be an important model for enabling emerging communities to face issues of modernity and globalisation in an intelligent, constructive way," he said.

According to Indian High Commissioner Kamlesh Sharma, the rising profile of India and the remarkable success of the Diaspora has increased interest in the foundations of its culture and traditions. "The affiliation with Oxford University advances the work of the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies in providing serious academic focus on Hindu culture and its depth of wisdom and creativity for a wide audience," he said.

The new formal status has been created by Oxford to acknowledge independent institutions working with the university in research and teaching.

An OCHS release quoted Oxford university chancellor Lord Patten of Barnes as saying that the "development fits in well with our goal to attract more Indian students to come and study at Oxford".

[ramana]

Has anyone read the essay by Dileep Karanth on the unity of India?
Link: Unity of India

[acharya]

Prem wrote:

In fact the whole partition was about this choice

Not really.

It was about two clusters of Muslim-majority provinces being given their choice to remain distinct and sovereign from Hindu-majority areas.

Think Cabinet Mission plan.

The Constituent Assembly of India had unanimously rejected this question of 'population transfer' and had settled on the secular nature of Indian Constitution, with equal and legitimate right of domicile for Hindus and Muslims of India alike.
Au contraire, the land of Bangladesh and Pakistan simply consists of those geographically contiguous areas where Muslims happened to be in a majority.

There was no "proportional" distribution.

Your claim is utterly unsound.

Valkan, as per you, the partition of India was not based on the religion at all and Pukis and BD Muslims just happen to have the majority in present BD/PUKE land mass.
If true , then what was Bihari/Up muslamans were doing participating in Pakistani movement of La ilaha Illilah? Why were Hindus and Sikhs forced to move out of their homes in 47, was it becuase of religion or some other factors. Last what is wrong with Muslims living in India claiming their share of BD and Puki land as a part of their politcal and spiritual heritage. GOI, as a representative Govt. should stake the claim.
Pukes, BD all owe this to the living descendants of their founding fathers , the very desendants are so far denied to exercise this right of them on BD/PD. SInce Mulsims in India want to effect Indian foregin /domestic policies etc, they better bring their share of partioned assest to the table... to have a seat.

Sunoor Singh

Quote:
Bangladesh summons Indian diplomat over Rajnath's comment


What does the Gore-ment of India have to do with an opposition leader's comment, its merits or otherwise notwithstanding?

Prem wrote:
Valkan, as per you, the partition of India was not based on the religion at all

I don't recall making such a claim.

The statement was that there was no partition based on the proportion of the two communities.

Therefore, your claim to a share of land in Pakistan and Bangladesh is unsound.

Quote:
what was Bihari/Up muslamans were doing participating in Pakistani movement of La ilaha Illilah?


They were demanding the creation of an independent, sovereign Muslim state.

And - at the conclusion of their efforts - they moved to the land of their dreams,- as 'Biharis' in Bangladesh and 'Muhajirs' in Pakistan.

Quote:
Last what is wrong with Muslims living in India claiming their share of BD and Puki land as a part of their politcal and spiritual heritage.


I'll repeat this for your benefit:

There was no partition based on the proportion of the two communities.

Therefore, your claim to a share of land in Pakistan and Bangladesh is unsound.

Quote:
SInce Mulsims in India want to effect Indian foregin /domestic policies etc.


As equal citizens of the state, they have constitutionally guaranteed democratic means at their disposal to effect whatever change they reasonably can.

What is the basis of your objection ?

Valkan,
The partition and the land was done on the basis of religion =Islam.
The emphasis and the determining factor is/was religion=Islam.
The majority of Muslims in India are Muslims first Indian second, reason being religion=Islam.
The Indian and Indian cvilization identity is not Islamic, infact a victim of Islamic sword. There so many other indications, Is it not unjust for Muslims in India to not to assert their claim and enjoy the Islamic heavens called Banga and Pak Desh. Their forefathers fought for these lands and some how could not join their Islamic dream land. The claim has nothing to do with proportion but religion onlee, the land of Dung and Bang Desh belongs to Muslims in India as much it belongs to other Muslims living in these lands. This was the reason for immigration to the former Pakistan till 65, it should start again. The onus is on the Bangladesh and Pukedesh to reject their claim , but we should and must make the case for them.

Valkan, if Muslims in India win their claim and bring their proportions of the divided assest to India , their satnding will be up and their claim on India fortified: if PUkes and Bangladesh reject the claim and refuse to accept them their own, Muslims in India will know and realize the truth,solving their wish washy attitude,dilemma about their co-religiosits who happen to be the enemies of India. India has nothing to loose by making the demand and having public debate on the issue. .

S. Valkan

Prem wrote:
Valkan,
The partition and the land was done on the basis of religion =Islam.
The emphasis and the determining factor is/was religion=Islam.


That hardly changes the basic contention of the Partition NOT being based on demographic proportionality.

Quote:
The majority of Muslims in India are Muslims first Indian second, reason being religion=Islam.


Is that claim based on some random generalisation, or scientific sampling ?

Quote:
The Indian and Indian cvilization identity is not Islamic, infact a victim of Islamic sword.


Indian civilisational identity is a heterogenous composite, with part of it being Islamic.

Many of the food, clothes, music, architecture and even words that you claim as "Indian" comes from Islamic sources.

Quote:
Their forefathers fought for these lands


Perhaps some of their forefathers did.

But they didn't.

That's the big difference.

Quote:
This was the reason for immigration to the former Pakistan till 65, it should start again.


That immigration policy is for the Pakistani and Bangladeshi government to decide on, not India.

India has no exit restrictions. Folks can leave if they want to.

Just as many do in their quest for the "green card" elsewhere.

Quote:
but we should and must make the case for them.


On what constitutional grounds ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prem

Valkan,
A rightful claim based on religion. The land of Banga and Puke Desh was taken from India on the basis of religion=ISlam and its adherrent in India . The claim dont require Constitustional base, the detremining factor of claim and its acception or rejection has to be the religion of Islam just like it was the basis of partition.
S. Valkan wrote:

Prem wrote:
Their forefathers fought for these lands

Perhaps some of their forefathers did.
But they didn't.
That's the big difference.

Prem wrote:
but we should and must make the case for them.

On what constitutional grounds ?


Funny thing is that an Indian Muslim need not bother what his forefathers stood for.

But a non-Muslim Indian needs to hang the constitution around his neck inspite of the fact that majority of our forefathers were not a party to the drafting of the constitution or atleast did not agree with significant portions of it.

Prem , Valkan ... I guess two of you are arguing from two very vastly different positions probably backed by equally different ideologies.

To cut it short, the entire series of posts argues about multi-culturalism vs. exclusivism. And it is fundamentally erronous for one side to assume that they hold the moral high ground.
Prem wrote:
A rightful claim based on religion.


Inapplicable.

Government of India is not bound to any religion.

Quote:
The claim dont require Constitustional base


Official claims do.

Quote:
the detremining factor of claim and its acception or rejection has to be the religion of Islam just like it was the basis of partition.


The Dominion of India created by partition was superceded by the Republic of India created by the Indian Constitution on Jan 26, 1950.

You claim has no locus standi.

sroy wrote:
Funny thing is that an Indian Muslim need not bother what his forefathers stood for.


Naturally.

If I don't commit a crime, I can't be expected to pay.

And that holds irrespective of what my forefathers did.

Quote:
But a non-Muslim Indian needs to hang the constitution around his neck inspite of the fact that majority of our forefathers were not a party to the drafting of the constitution or atleast did not agree with significant portions of it.


Those that agreed to remain in India after the Constitution was democratically created( via the Constituent Assembly) and participated in the implementation of the Constitution(via general elections to the new Parliament ) have implicitly AND explicitly consented to it, respectively.

Those that participate in the elections under the present Constitution, or apply for official Indian documents ( passport etc ) are, likewise, bound by the same Constitution as is in effect.

Moreover, the Constitution is a living document, and Amendments do take place regularly.

If you don't accept the Constitution, you have the option to leave the country, or work to change the Constitution democratically.

So, this flip-side-of-the-coin argument doesn't hold.

S. Valkan wrote:

Moreover, the Constitution is a living document, and Amendments do take place regularly.

The role of constitution is of lesser importance here. The framers of the constitution acted on the basic premises that religious or cultural identity is not of greater importance for common people. They also assumed that no civilizational divide exist.

Their assumptions were wrong. The bounds and checks of the constitution just reflects those fallacies.

S. Valkan wrote:

Those that agreed to remain in India after the Constitution was democratically created( via the Constituent Assembly) and participated in the implementation of the Constitution(via general elections to the new Parliament ) have implicitly AND explicitly consented to it, respectively.

What do you mean by "agreed"? AFAIK unless someone traces his or her lineage to some invader, their bloodlines stretches back to hoary antiquity of pre-historic India.
India is their homeland, motherland, fatherland, or any term you like. Do they have to leave India if they don't agree with certain aspects of the constitution?
How does elections come into the arguement? Are elections any benchmark of public opinion? Are our elected representatives reflection public opinion?

As an example, what percentage of population want Article 370 to hang around? Is there any legislative action to match the public mood?

So, your arguements does not cut ice.

Last edited by sroy on 15 Aug 2006 09:33 pm; edited 1 time in total

sroy wrote:
They also assumed that no civilizational divide exist.


Why should you assume this ?

Quote:
What do you mean by "agreed"?


They voted to elect the Constituent Assembly.

Quote:
Do they have to leave India if they don't agree with certain aspects of the constitution?


Read my last few posts a little more carefully.

They have the choice to either change it by democratic processes outlined in the Constitution, or leave.

Quote:
How does elections come into the arguement? Are elections any benchmark of public opinion? Are our elected representatives reflection public opinion?


The price of not participating in politics is to be ruled by your inferiors.

If Mulayams and Laloos don't reflect your opinion, you are free to contest the elections against them, and win ( if you can ).

Quote:
As an example, what percentage of population want Article 370 to hang around? Is there any legislative action to match the public mood?


So, democratically remove the offending legislators from their representative position, and elect someone who would reflect your views.

Who's stopping you, if you feel your opinion is shared by the 'silent majority' ?

sroy wrote:

They also assumed that no civilizational divide exist.
S. Valkan wrote:

Why should you assume this ?


Judge people by their actions. Plus there are unbiased versions of history available.

S. Valkan wrote:

Quote:
What do you mean by "agreed"?

They voted to elect the Constituent Assembly.

Yep, maybe my forefathers voted, but not me.

S. Valkan wrote:

Who's stopping you, if you feel your opinion is shared by the 'silent majority' ?

Such rhetorics won't take the discussion anywhere unless you understand what does the term 'silent majority' mean.

Since, this Bangladesh thread, lets try a specific example. Few questions.

How much do you know about the BD infiltration pattern in the East?
Why the infiltration issue is not being a election issue despite the fact that this phenomenon has affected the local economy in WB, burdened the already deficient infrastructure and has contributed to general lawlessness?

The questions are tied to your 'silent majority' phenomenon and issues of partition (as raised by Prem). Any idea?

sroy wrote:
Judge people by their actions.


The members of the Constituent Assembly acknowledged and accepted distinct personal laws while framing the Constitution.

Judge the "no civilisational divide" by their actions.

Quote:
Yep, maybe my forefathers voted, but not me.


But you do exercise your constitutional right to vote. That implies acceptance of it.

Also, if you find any particular provision in the Constitution not to your liking, you have the option to lead a democratic process to change it.

If none of the above is true, you have the option to leave.

Quote:
How much do you know about the BD infiltration pattern in the East?


Let's just assume that I do know just about enough.

Do I have to describe the process of how Isvardi and Santahar are the staging grounds, or whether Pabna and Comilla fare better or worse compared to Dinajpur and Sylhet ?

Quote:
Why the infiltration issue is not being a election issue despite the fact that this phenomenon has affected the local economy in WB, burdened the already deficient infrastructure and has contributed to general lawlessness?


Is that a question to ask me, your fellow voters in Nadia and Murshidabad, or your elected representatives in the State and National Assemblies ?

Quote:
The questions are tied to your 'silent majority' phenomenon and issues of partition (as raised by Prem).


Don't see the connection with Article 370 and why elected representatives couldn't reflect the public sentiment ( in your claim), except as a strawman argument.
S. Valkan wrote:

Quote:
Why the infiltration issue is not being a election issue despite the fact that this phenomenon has affected the local economy in WB, burdened the already deficient infrastructure and has contributed to general lawlessness?

Is that a question to ask me, your fellow voters in Nadia and Murshidabad, or your elected representatives in the State and National Assemblies ?

Not my fellow voters. Smile. I'm from Delhi.
Of course it is a question for you, because your fundamental assumption on issues of partition is wrong.

S. Valkan wrote:

Quote:
The questions are tied to your 'silent majority' phenomenon and issues of partition (as raised by Prem).

Don't see the connection with Article 370 and why elected representatives couldn't reflect the public sentiment ( in your claim), except as a strawman argument.

No connection, but a parallel example. What you see in public discourse may not be something actually desired by masses.

You have not been able to explain the disconnect w.r.t. article 370. Are the politicians to blame or there is something wrong with our electoral process (duly backed by constitution) that pushes up wrong apples?

For the BD infiltration case, someone I know tried to start a thread with accompanying GoI data and reports to explain the phenomenon. Regrettably the gent was banned because the topic was deemed too 'unsecular'.

So, I'll close the discussion and leave it upto you as an exercise to find out as why there has been no local outrage against BD infiltration in WB despite great hoopla in media.

Valkan, India is a civilizational state . Islam is not part of the Indian Civiliziation; Islam is a separate civilization and a portion of Indian land was allocated for the followers of Islam to live as per their civilizational code. If the constitutional assembly made the mistake of not accepting the civilizational divide in Indian population , it ought to be rectified.
There is no harm in accepting that majority of islamic folks voted for Bakistan resulting in partition but were unable to move to Bakistan for some reasons. The desendants of these Bakistani freedom fighters has valid claim on their forefathers' share of booty: the open immigration till 65 is a proof of their valid claim. They being remained in India is no proof of their acceptance of India and its civilization. With the ability to move to these lands freely and the the rejection or acceptencace there of ought to be the real criteria to make a right call. The choice was taken from them by Pukes.They have right stake in the claim and if they wish they can win this bring it back in India or keep it in these lands along with them .

Indian constitution dont apply on East or West Bakistan, hense GOI should raise the issue with these 2 respective govenment to compensate the losses of Muslims in India, in proportion to their percentage in 47 ,on the basis of religion... same religion by which the Bakistan claim was made and acepted =ISlam.
Constitution was made by Indians and for Indians and can be changed by Indian voters. Hense there should be a public debate in India as well as diplomatic talks with B & B Govts. It is win win for us and beneficial for for consolidation of Indian society , removing lots of supicions, prejudices and misundersatndings... E.g to you Yours and to me Mine.

sroy wrote:
You have not been able to explain the disconnect w.r.t. article 370.


The disconnect is in your mind.

Most of the 1.1 billion people do not give a damn about Article 370.

Only a few educated urban coffee-house intellectuals, and die-hard extremists do.

It reinforces the point that - despite all the rumblings in these fora and fiery speeches by political opportunists - there is no national consensus on Article 370.

The Constitutional procedure is laid down to remove the Article, just as the other articles of similar nature had been previously removed.

If there is a national consensus, just avail of it.

If not, no point fulminating over a non-issue.

In any case, I have nothing to explain.

Quote:
Are the politicians to blame or there is something wrong with our electoral process (duly backed by constitution) that pushes up wrong apples?


If a majority of Indians feel that there a problem with the electoral process, push for a change of the Constitution by democratic means.

Obviously, you are in a minority who feels that way.

Quote:
So, I'll close the discussion and leave it upto you as an exercise to find out as why there has been no local outrage against BD infiltration in WB despite great hoopla in media.


I am quite aware of it.

And there are several Constitutional options, including the imposition of Article 356, to circumvent such "local" apathy in the greater interest of the nation.

Why not push your national legislators to do the same ?

S. Valkan wrote:

Quote:
So, I'll close the discussion and leave it upto you as an exercise to find out as why there has been no local outrage against BD infiltration in WB despite great hoopla in media.


I am quite aware of it.

And there are several Constitutional options, including the imposition of Article 356, to circumvent such "local" apathy in the greater interest of the nation.

Why not push your national legislators to do the same ?

You see, the harm to the greater interest of the nation or lack of it depends on understanding the infiltration pattern, which you don't have.

Of course, it is easy to push down Article 356 down someone's throat with long term conseqeunces.

Maybe there should be 'controlled' immigration of BDs legal or illegal. If you think thats not in national interest than that's your problem and your lack of understanding of sub-continental history.
And if you have not been able to get my drift then again its your problem.

Prem wrote:
Valkan, India is a civilizational state .


Abstraction with an intent to obfuscate stark reality.

India is a Bicmarckian nation state comprising geographically contiguous provinces that had been divided/arranged linguistically - after independence from British monarchy - into a federal republic. Period.

There is an element of a composite culture that binds those geographically contiguous provinces together.

And the Islamic element ( along with the Sikh, Buddhist, Christian and Parsi elements ) in that composite mosaic is undeniable.

Quote:
Islam is not part of the Indian Civiliziation


Firstly, this abstraction of "civilisation" is difficult, if not impossible.

There are some broad contours that can be defined for a civilisation, not clear-cut demarcations.

Where do the boundaries of Indian civilisation lie ?

Is the now-extinct Gandhara civilisation Indian, or Greek, or a composite of the two ?

Quote:
The desendants of these Bakistani freedom fighters has valid claim on their forefathers' share of booty: the open immigration till 65 is a proof of their valid claim.


Another illogical claim.

Those "descendants" were born in India, and hence are Indian citizens by birth.

If they wish, they can always emigrate.

But they have no "claim" to Pakistan or Bangladesh.

Just as Hindus living in Pakistan and Bangladesh have no automatic claim to India, unless Indian laws explicitly allow such a claim ( on the pattern of the Israeli right to return for Jews anywhere ).

This is not a Stock Option that you can exercise over generations.

Quote:
Indian constitution dont apply on East or West Bakistan, hense GOI should raise the issue with these 2 respective govenment


Since the Indian constitution doesn't apply to Pakistan or Bangladesh, GOI has no legal authority or obligation to raise any such claim.

Quote:
It is win win for us and beneficial for for consolidation of Indian society , removing lots of supicions, prejudices and misundersatndings...


Rather jocund statement.

Why should I trust a traitor like Rabinder Singh any more than a hero like APJ Abdul Kalam or Azim Premji ?
S. Valkan wrote:

India is a Bicmarckian nation state comprising geographically contiguous provinces that had been divided/arranged linguistically - after independence from British monarchy - into a federal republic. Period.

Artificial state, and portions of which shows the characteristics of a failed state. Artificial, because the consolidation process is not yet complete, once that is done we will be truly a civilizational state.
You see, the harm to the greater interest of the nation or lack of it depends on understanding the infiltration pattern, which you don't have.


What understanding you think I have, or don't have, is immaterial.

I have given you specific steps to counter all your objections.

Why not follow through with it, rather than claim arbitrary discrepancies in my knowledge ?

Quote:
Maybe there should be 'controlled' immigration of BDs legal or illegal.


No arguments there.

Please feel free to control it.

Obviously, you are unwilling, or unable to use constitutional means available, like Article 356, when local apathy is rampant.

Would you rather form vigilante 'Minutemen' groups, and beat back those that immigrate illegally ?

sroy wrote:
Artificial, because the consolidation process is not yet complete


When did consolidation begin ?

Under the Kuru dynasty, under Ashoka, under the Guptas, when ?

Quote:
once that is done we will be truly a civilizational state.


Please specify the nature of this "consolidation" youhave in mind, and how long it might realistically take.

sroy wrote:
S. Valkan wrote:

India is a Bicmarckian nation state comprising geographically contiguous provinces that had been divided/arranged linguistically - after independence from British monarchy - into a federal republic. Period.

Artificial state, and portions of which shows the characteristics of a failed state. Artificial, because the consolidation process is not yet complete, once that is done we will be truly a civilizational state.


Main reason is due to political process which does not take the true relations between regions on the ground. As an economic state it was connected for millenia. Political process evolution broke down after 1975 and it has been lingering from that time. Media and imagemakers have taken over the political process making the political/intellectual process a farce.

[acharya]

Prem
BRFite


Joined: 01 Jul 1999
Posts: 428
Location: My Harem in Lahore.

PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 07:07 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Valkan,
Parsis have no complaints, the Non -Indian Christain Missionaries are nuisance at best, Sikhs, Budhists are all from the womb of Mother India and have all the rights and claims... there is no equal equal with islamic forces which are clearly inimical and dangerous to Indian state,ethos and civilization and its material ,spiritual progress.

My contention is , Islamic folks were deprived of their right to move to these 2 Islamic countries for which their forefathers fought for and got in the name of religion. They are part of Ummah and leftover ,legacy of Islam in India. Should not they be asked? Should not BD and PD be forced to share the loot with them. Why should non-muslims share their portion of India with Muslims for whom the fair portion of land was set aside. Its all about religion , no other mumbo jumbo.
Why do u bring Kalam Ji., Prem Ji or Rabinder singh in the equation?
Kalam ji is murtad as per the Islamic elements in India are concerned. Prem ji has made a free choice as he can move any where in the world with his $$ but he remains Indian. Rabinder singh is not a norm but a rare exception. The question is of millions of poor,illiterate millions of Muslims incapable of looking beyond their religion born out of India. Pakistan/BD was / is earned and alloctaed for them .
The consolidation of Indian society, nation is slow and might never happen because of Islamist elements in India. There is no example of their peaceful co-existence or assimilation with non -islamic societies in the last 1400 years or so. Present non- muslim generation of India owe it to their future generation to find the clear cut answer to this Islamic question mark on India and its future : same goes for present day Mulsims in India and their islamic aspirations which can never be fulfilled in non-islamic India.
Think this way, Old genearion was not asked about the issue and the suspicions are still lingering, why not clear the smoke now and march onward into 21st century. BD/PD are party to this and GOI owe this to every well meaning Indian .
There should be a national, public debate on this and issue ought to be part of Indian diplomatic agenda with BD/PD. If this require constitutional amendment , so be it.
Let me ask , What does India loose by raising the issue with these 2 countries . Will wining this issue make India strong or weak?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sroy
BRFite


Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 704
Location: New Delhi

PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 07:14 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Prem wrote:

The consolidation of Indian society, nation is slow and might never happen becuase of Islamist elements in India. There is no example of their peaceful co-existence or assimilation with non -islamic societies in the last 1400 years or so. Present non- muslim generation of India owe it to their future generation to find the clear cut answer to this Islamic question mark on India and its future and same for present day Mulsims in India and their islamic aspirations.


Thanks, bro for spelling it out clearly putting aside political correctness. This is exactly what I meant by homogenization with respect to consolidation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
S. Valkan
BRFite


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 470


PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 07:14 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
sroy wrote:
Seriously, much before Kurus

The dual purpose of their narratives/commentaries on RigVeda and its assorted material including Puranas .... is to refute AIT and on the other hand they document the expansion of ancient Vedic ... culture from centre of area around Indus.


You are comfortably gliding in and out between two rather loosely related terms,- 'civilisation' and 'culture'.

Discussion on AIT and pitching studies of chromosomal Y-haplogroups against the Samhitas and Puranas is way beyond the scope of this thread. I'll skip over it.

All I need from you is a simple answer,- when did the Indic "civilisation" consolidation begin ?

Why is it taking so long to "consolidate" ?

Quote:
By consolidation I also mean recovering lost territories. No nation in the last century has lost as much land as we have.


What do you mean by "lost" ?

There was a democratic referendum, and people inhabiting sections of erstwhile British India decided to go their own way.

What is your justification about "recovery" ?

Quote:
The present state of the Indian Union is not desirable.


Is that your personal opinion, or is it shared by the 'silent majority' ?

Quote:
We have territories that have inhabitants treating us mainstream folks like foriegners, but there are neighbouring countries where you'll feel at home.


The neighbouring countries want to remain apart from the Indian Union, even though YOU may feel at home in them.

What are your options ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prem
BRFite


Joined: 01 Jul 1999
Posts: 428
Location: My Harem in Lahore.

PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 07:20 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Vlkan , read Ramana's post in J&K thread....

"Prof M Mujeeb, the late vice-chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia, later opined in his book, Islamic Influence on Indian Society, that Muslims were overwhelmingly in favour of Pakistan. Soon after the election, the Congress conceded Jinnah's claim to participate in the interim Government which earlier it was not prepared to; its erstwhile demand was for a share of the Muslim seats. In the interim Government, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad had to be given a non-Muslim entitlement.

The interim Government having been formed, the League's obsession for the rest of the year was on an exchange of population whereby all the Muslims should immigrate to Pakistan and all non-Muslims should transfer to Hindustan. Sir Feroze Khan Noon, who later on went to become Prime Minister, on April 8, 1946, told his Bihar legislators that unless there was an exchange of population, the League would re-enact the murderous orgies of Changez Khan and Halaqu Khan.

Ismail Chundrigar, another Prime Minister who hailed from Godhra, had also wanted his fellow religionists to emigrate.

The Qaid-e-Azam, in a press conference held at Karachi on November 25, announced that the authorities should immediately take up the question of population exchange. Mohammad Ismail of Madras and Shaukat Hayat Khan had whole-heartedly supported the idea.

On December 3, Pir Ilahi Bux of Sind and Iftikhar Husain Khan, the Punjab League chief, in separate meetings had reiterated the demand for an exchange."


Valkan, do you deny India was not partitioned on the basis of religion ?
Do you think the land lost by India to a foreign civiization is no loss at all and you are willing to take the risk of loosing some more land and people? Do you think islamic followers in India dont have the aspiration to make it Dar Ul Islam , as required by their islamic religion ,which is nothing but to finish Indian civlization= which might be anything as per your understanding, but is Clearly not a Islamic one.
So the possibilty of migration is still a issue.

Last edited by Prem on 16 Aug 2006 07:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
S. Valkan
BRFite


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 470


PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 07:23 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Prem wrote:
Rabinder singh is not a norm but a rare exception.


Is that a scientifically provable claim, or have you made it a habit to make sweeping generalisations ?

Of the spies that are at the center of attention in Jaswant's book promotion, how many "rare exceptions" are outside the community of Rabinder Singh ?


Quote:
There should be a national, public debate on this


That's not a problem.

If you have the money, and the time, create a "Conference" like they do on "Kashmir", and hold televised national debates among participants.

If you find and build a consensus, float a party with that agenda on the manifesto ( like "Ram Janambhoomi" for BJP ) and contest the elections.

Quote:
and issue ought to be part of Indian diplomatic agenda with BD/PD.


Not as per the Constitution as it stands now.

Quote:
If this require constitutional amendment , so be it.


That's the spirit!

Now, why don't you work at achieving that amendment first ?

Quote:
Let me ask , What does India loose by raising the issue with these 2 countries . Will wining this issue make India strong or weak?


Whether India loses or gains is not the issue.

India has no constitutional obligation to raise your demand.

That's the key issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
S. Valkan
BRFite


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 470


PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 07:28 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Prem wrote:
The interim Government having been formed, the League's obsession for the rest of the year was on an exchange of population whereby all the Muslims should immigrate to Pakistan and all non-Muslims should transfer to Hindustan.


In case this escaped your attention, all the above are speaking of a time before the Partition, and the creation of the "secular" Indian Constitution.

The apprehension then was that the future Dominion of India was to be a "Hindu-stan" rather than the secular, democratic republic of India.

Henceforth, please refer to the period AFTER January 26, 1950.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prem
BRFite


Joined: 01 Jul 1999
Posts: 428
Location: My Harem in Lahore.

PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 07:41 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Solution, of course is to change the Indian constitution.
We are debating to find the clear cut solution to the problem which you refuse to admit.

The 1950 is not so sacrosant and written in stone that cannot be changed . The immigration was open till 65. Kashmir issue is still open with same Islamic elements. So raising the public awareness about the dangers is the duty of every well meaning Indian. This is not a personal issue but a national tragedy in making . Indians need to prevent this from happening and clean the mess created by the mistakes of old generation political leaders lacking good strategic foresight in recognising the impending dangers . We ought not to remain hostages of certain old prejudices and inhibitions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sroy
BRFite


Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 704
Location: New Delhi

PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 07:47 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
S. Valkan wrote:

You are comfortably gliding in and out between two rather loosely related terms,- 'civilisation' and 'culture'.

Rightly so, because civilization is a super entity. An advanced culture beyond a point to beguns to acquire the traits of a civilization. A civilization implicitly incorporates a culture.

S. Valkan wrote:

All I need from you is a simple answer,- when did the Indic "civilisation" consolidation begin ?

Right from the Battle of the Ten Kings in the Rig Veda. Because that established the supremacy of folllowers of the Vedic culture.

S. Valkan wrote:

Why is it taking so long to "consolidate" ?

Always an ongoing process. During Maurya's and Gupta's it was a peak period of consolidation under a single and central power. But the period between these two was marked by fragmentation. Result was failure to stem Shaka and Hun invasions. Incidentally the Gupta's tamed the Huns.

Probably the next phase was under the efforts of Marathas and the Sikhs wherein the Mughal authority was nominal and assorted nawabs were lying low. Indic civilization was reasserting itself.
British intervention put an end to this Islamic rollback process.

The most recent phase is the current one. Goa, Sikkim, Hyderabad, Junagarh etc. etc. Bhutan is already a protectorate and there are was slight inclination on part of Nepal in the 50s.

S. Valkan wrote:

What do you mean by "lost" ?
There was a democratic referendum, and people inhabiting sections of erstwhile British India decided to go their own way.
What is your justification about "recovery" ?

Recovery Smile ? Does PoK and Aksai Chin ring a bell?

Are you sure there was a referendum? My reading of the history tells me Congies agreed under the threat of Direct Action!

S. Valkan wrote:

Quote:
The present state of the Indian Union is not desirable.

Is that your personal opinion, or is it shared by the 'silent majority' ?

Depends on your definition of 'silent majority'. In BRF itself there has been serious discussion and general agreement to recover the Chittagong hill tracts from BD by hook or crook.
Also, there has been long standing demand from WB to exchange the Indian and BD enclaves. Does this qualify?

S. Valkan wrote:

Quote:
We have territories that have inhabitants treating us mainstream folks like foriegners, but there are neighbouring countries where you'll feel at home.

The neighbouring countries want to remain apart from the Indian Union, even though YOU may feel at home in them.
What are your options ?

If a neigbouring country shares your culture, sends her sons to defend your motherland, it will need some political tact to bring her around. But it is workable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Shafqat
BRFite


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 303


PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 08:24 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
sroy wrote:
Also, there has been long standing demand from WB to exchange the Indian and BD enclaves. Does this qualify?

The enclaves resulted from the stupid border drawing process of the Brits. The 1973 Border Treaty (signed by Indira and Mujib) was meant to start the exchange of the enclaves. If I remember right, the border treaty was never ratified in India. But that's a different story - what I don't get it how that is related to the state of the union.

sroy wrote:
In BRF itself there has been serious discussion and general agreement to recover the Chittagong hill tracts from BD by hook or crook.

"Recover" CHT? On what grounds? I seriously disagree if there was a "serious discussion" here in BRF about that. A heated exchange maybe - but "let's take CHT" and "let's have tea in Feni" are hardly 'serious' statements. There was a general agreement about that among some, yeah - but not among the 'serious' posters of this forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
S. Valkan
BRFite


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 470


PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 08:43 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
sroy wrote:
S. Valkan wrote:

You are comfortably gliding in and out between two rather loosely related terms,- 'civilisation' and 'culture'.
A civilization implicitly incorporates a culture.


Now, given the fact that Indian culture is a heterogeneous composite including elements from Islamic sources, where does that leave your contention that Indian civilisation has nothing to do with Islam ?

Quote:
Always an ongoing process.


In other words, it has no end.

That's what I was looking for.

Quote:
The most recent phase is the current one. Goa, Sikkim, Hyderabad, Junagarh etc. etc.


Is that "consolidation" of civilisation, culture, or merely usurpation of territory ?

Since when is Pork Vindaloo or Hyderabadi Biryani part of the "consolidation" of Vedic culture ?

Quote:
Bhutan is already a protectorate and there are was slight inclination on part of Nepal in the 50s.


Living in the past doesn't help.

Nepal is on its way to become a republic.

Bhutan - the iron grip of Jigme Singye Wangchuk notwithstanding - would slowly go the same way.

And, in any event, Bhutan and Sikkim form a cultural/civilisational continuity with Tibet.

Where have you consolidated "Indic" civilisation ?

S. Valkan wrote:
Does PoK and Aksai Chin ring a bell?


Do you seriously entertain the belief that they WILL be recovered, ever ?


Quote:
Are you sure there was a referendum? My reading of the history tells me Congies agreed under the threat of Direct Action!


Firstly, the sweeping victory for Muslim League in 1946 elections for Muslim seats was a plebiscite.

Secondly, the Muslim League won the Pakistan referendum in provinces like NWFP, where Congress had a nominal victory in the 1946 elections, thanks to Khuda-i-Khidmatgars.

In effect, Pakistan was a product of referendum of Muslim-majority areas.

Quote:
In BRF itself there has been serious discussion and general agreement to recover the Chittagong hill tracts from BD by hook or crook.


Khayali Pulaos may work in internet discussions, not in real life.

The Radcliffe award had a certain logic to it.

The award of Hindu-majority Khulna was made in exchange of Muslim-majority Murshidabad, because of the fear of Pakistan blocking the head waters of the Hoogly flowing through Kolkata.

Similarly, East Pakistan needed to have a land exit point, and was awarded the CHT, while Muslim-majority Gurdaspur was awarded to India to provide land-access to the Jammu and Kashmir state.

What "recovery" would you seek ?

Quote:
If a neigbouring country shares your culture, sends her sons to defend your motherland, it will need some political tact to bring her around. But it is workable.


The French foreign legion employs many foreign mercenaries to defend French soil.

France offers French citizenship to those interested.

What makes you think the situation is any more different for the Gorkhas ?

Don't forget that the British used the Gorkha mercenaries to quell the Sikhs, and put out the last flames of Indian rule.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Johann
BRFite


Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 1649


PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 09:03 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I dont think it would be a bad idea at all to make sure that that everyone knew that anyone who didnt think India was a sufficiently Islamic environment has the freedom to make a no-hassle 1-way move to Pakistan or Bangladesh. He should be when the feeling seizes him and the takleef becomes unbearable be able to sell his property and businesses at a fair price, safely transport his family, valuables and cash without undue delays. But it would mean no tourist visas for family members in Pakistan to visit, vetting for those who wish to visit Pakistan, and vetting and perhaps consequences for those who visited it without permission. It would make staying in India and getting along with others, and accomodating the modern world an active choice rather than a passive one.

It would also be just as good (in every sense of the word) an idea to offer asylum to non-Muslim minorities in those countries, as well as Muslim minorities like Ismailis, Ahmediyas, human rights activists, musicians, female victims of 'honour' crimes etc from those countries.

In concert they would act as a useful pressure valve on Islamist sentiment within India, and offer hope to those trapped by such sentiment next door.

On the other hand big, formal 'exchanges' of populations, even mutually agreed ones are usually horrifically violent and destructive. Greece and Turkey in the 1920s, the USSR and Turkey, various conflicts in between minorities in the USSR from 1917-1991, India and Pakistan in the 1940s, etc.

An exchange also means bartering. How many Non-Muslims would Pakistan and Bangladesh have to trade? 20 million tops? (never mind how many would actually survive the savagery of an exchange and make it across the border) Maybe you could include Shias, Ahmediyas, Ismailis, etc and other targets of Sunni hatred and double the figure.

How many Muslims over and above that would Pakistan and Bangladesh be willing to accept without territorial concessions to go with them?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sroy
BRFite


Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 704
Location: New Delhi

PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 09:24 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
S. Valkan wrote:

Now, given the fact that Indian culture is a heterogeneous composite including elements from Islamic sources, where does that leave your contention that Indian civilisation has nothing to do with Islam ?

Islam is the only element that has refused to integrate. And it is the only element that asks for extra-territorial loyalty among its followers. Finally how you define your identity is upto you. A lot of people may not share your identity.

S. Valkan wrote:

Since when is Pork Vindaloo or Hyderabadi Biryani part of the "consolidation" of Vedic culture ?

Since I've tried Chinese cuisine and during my trips to Germany every 2-3 month I'm compelled to try suarkraut, they too are part of our cultural baggage as per your logic.

S. Valkan wrote:

Quote:
The most recent phase is the current one. Goa, Sikkim, Hyderabad, Junagarh etc. etc.

Is that "consolidation" of civilisation, culture, or merely usurpation of territory ?

Consolidation is indeed usurpation, crudely put. Search for Lebensraum is a legitimate responsibility of a state apparatus. Lets stick to realpolitik.

S. Valkan wrote:

Quote:
Bhutan is already a protectorate and there are was slight inclination on part of Nepal in the 50s.

Living in the past doesn't help.
Nepal is on its way to become a republic.
Bhutan - the iron grip of Jigme Singye Wangchuk notwithstanding - would slowly go the same way.
Don't forget that the British used the Gorkha mercenaries to quell the Sikhs, and put out the last flames of Indian rule.

This no way refutes what I've said. This just goes to bring out the incompetency of Nehru's Govt. Goa and Sikkim are standing examples of what could have been done.

S. Valkan wrote:

And, in any event, Bhutan and Sikkim form a cultural/civilisational continuity with Tibet.
Where have you consolidated "Indic" civilisation ?

Agreed, to emerge as a true civilizational state these should have been incorporated.


S. Valkan wrote:
Quote:
Does PoK and Aksai Chin ring a bell?

Do you seriously entertain the belief that they WILL be recovered, ever ?

History and global events cannot be predicted, but states can only plan to minimize improbables.

S. Valkan wrote:

Firstly, the sweeping victory for Muslim League in 1946 elections for Muslim seats was a plebiscite.
Secondly, the Muslim League won the Pakistan referendum in provinces like NWFP, where Congress had a nominal victory in the 1946 elections, thanks to Khuda-i-Khidmatgars.
In effect, Pakistan was a product of referendum of Muslim-majority areas.

You said it Smile, . In that case Pak and BD should be treated as renegade provinces and hence invaded and territories recovered.

S. Valkan wrote:

Quote:
In BRF itself there has been serious discussion and general agreement to recover the Chittagong hill tracts from BD by hook or crook.

Khayali Pulaos may work in internet discussions, not in real life.
The Radcliffe award had a certain logic to it.
The award of Hindu-majority Khulna was made in exchange of Muslim-majority Murshidabad, because of the fear of Pakistan blocking the head waters of the Hoogly flowing through Kolkata.
Similarly, East Pakistan needed to have a land exit point, and was awarded the CHT, while Muslim-majority Gurdaspur was awarded to India to provide land-access to the Jammu and Kashmir state.
What "recovery" would you seek ?

Have you been to the Eastern Borders? What sane logic allows for foriegn enclaves within each others territory?
As Shafqat has pointed out, the treaty for exchange of enclaves is pending for ratification on India's part.

This is my last post on the topic. To sum up I'll go back to Prem's original suggestion. Certain aspects of consolidation like territiorial recovery may not be possible beyond a point, but cultural homogenization is possible.

The very fact that till 65 war migrations were officially allowed bears the truth that this is possible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Prem
BRFite


Joined: 01 Jul 1999
Posts: 428
Location: My Harem in Lahore.

PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 09:24 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Valkan, the Islamic part and element in present is because of Islamic invasion, nothing else . There is no worthwhile compatiable spiritual contribution toward Indic ethos. In reality, Islam stands for everything contrary to Indian social, cultural and spiritual traditions of India sans some very insignificant simililarites.Islamics claim so and are proud of their exclusiveness and so forth, there is no harm in accepting the reality and recognizing the danger for ignoring it too long.

I think , asking the followers of Islam on Indian sub-continenet to settle the issue is not demanding as much. The consequences of not finding the answer could be terrible and tremendous. Indians deseve to know the answer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sroy
BRFite


Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 704
Location: New Delhi

PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 09:36 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
When referring to civilizational issue I use the term Indic instead of Hindu or Vedic. The later two are cultural aspects.
I request others to use the same terminology, because the first one and the later two are not interchangable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
S. Valkan
BRFite


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 470


PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 10:06 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
sroy wrote:
Islam is the only element that has refused to integrate. And it is the only element that asks for extra-territorial loyalty among its followers.


Do you suggest that Hindus in America have allegiance to the Mississippi rather than the Ganga, to Mount Rushmore rather than Mount Kailash and to Lake Superior rather than Manasarovar ?

Quote:
Finally how you define your identity is upto you. A lot of people may not share your identity.


So why do you seek "homogeneity" ?

Quote:
Since I've tried Chinese cuisine and during my trips to Germany every 2-3 month I'm compelled to try suarkraut, they too are part of our cultural baggage as per your logic.


False dichotomy.

If Sauerkraut was served as a regional dish of India, or if Chow Ho Fun was a staple diet of a region of India, you had an analogy.

Pork Vindaloo is Indian food,- it is Goanese cuisine.

So is Hyderabadi Biryani a proudly-proclaimed "authentic" Indian food from Andhra Pradesh.

Yet they have no basis in Vedic culture.

Don't compare apples and oranges.

Quote:

Consolidation is indeed usurpation, crudely put. Search for Lebensraum is a legitimate responsibility of a state apparatus.


So why blame Bangladeshis for searching their own Lebensraum in India ?

Quote:
This no way refutes what I've said.


Nothing would ever refute what you said.

Nepal is a sovereign country, just like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh or Pakistan is.

If that doesn't refute what you said, I don't know what does.

Quote:
Goa and Sikkim are standing examples of what could have been done.


Goa was a colony of the Portuguese, and it was recovered by force, unlike British and French colonies which were recovered peacefully.

It has no parallel.

Sikkim is a different story.

Given a choice between India and an independent Tibet, it would have chosen Tibet.

But, fearful of a Chinese repression, and to keep Tibetan culture alive, they chose India.

Nepal has no such fear.

Your example is flawed.

Quote:
Agreed, to emerge as a true civilizational state these should have been incorporated.


Spoken like a true believer of fascism.

Sudetenland, Danzig corridor, Alsace-Lorraine,- the list goes on.

Quote:
In that case Pak and BD should be treated as renegade provinces and hence invaded and territories recovered.


I don't see the logic in this.

According to your line of thinking, the British should use the same logic to reconquer India.

Quote:
Have you been to the Eastern Borders? What sane logic allows for foriegn enclaves within each others territory?


That's an entirely different question from recovering CHT, which I just showed was an exercise in fertile imagination.

Quote:
but cultural homogenization is possible.


No doubt.

But is it welcome ?

Why should a Tamil give up Thayir Sadam and Sambhar, and agree to eat Dal-Roti, Fish curry and Pork Vindaloo, or give up Bharat Natyam to only dance Bihu just because some free-thinker came up with a brilliant suggestion to "homogenise" Indian culture ?

Quote:
The very fact that till 65 war migrations were officially allowed bears the truth that this is possible.


That was a choice and a voluntary act.

What you seek is a mandatory migration.

Big difference.

Last edited by S. Valkan on 16 Aug 2006 10:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
S. Valkan
BRFite


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 470


PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 10:09 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Prem wrote:
I think , asking the followers of Islam on Indian sub-continenet to settle the issue is not demanding as much.


The issue is a question of identity or identities.

As Johann suggested, allow them make that choice.

Why are you making the choice for them ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prem
BRFite


Joined: 01 Jul 1999
Posts: 428
Location: My Harem in Lahore.

PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 10:31 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Valkan,
Hindus did not/ are not demanding the parttion of the country USA , hense your example of loyality to Missisipi is not correct.
If the Islamic claim is based on food and dishes , they should be welcomed to earn the kudos and move on.

The immigration till 65 was voluntary and was stopped by BD/PD . What does that prove, given a choice Islamic folks will prefer to live in Islamic lands > In the case of Indian landmass , BD/PD are Islamic lands allocated to followers of ISLAM. Its all about giving choices.
The agenda of 47 partition is still open and GOI need to press the issue with next door 2 Islamic govts of the land taken from India in the name of Islam. Indian Muslims are entitlled to this right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sroy
BRFite


Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 704
Location: New Delhi

PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 10:32 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
S. Valkan wrote:

Quote:

Consolidation is indeed usurpation, crudely put. Search for Lebensraum is a legitimate responsibility of a state apparatus.

So why blame Bangladeshis for searching their own Lebensraum in India ?

Liberal, psuedo-sec, losers blame BD. From my POV if India and BD / Pak collide for territorial issues, let the mighty one win. Thats the rule of history.
Everybody has the right to land grab, as per their military potentials.

S. Valkan wrote:

Quote:
Agreed, to emerge as a true civilizational state these should have been incorporated.

Spoken like a true believer of fascism.

Just as you are spouting psuedo-sec and ultra-leftist rhetoric about multi-culturalism.

S. Valkan wrote:

Sudetenland, Danzig corridor, Alsace-Lorraine,- the list goes on.

Indeed, the Third Reich would have had a consolidated German mega state including Austria and Switzerland, if Hitler didn't opt for Barbarossa.

S. Valkan wrote:

Quote:
but cultural homogenization is possible.

No doubt.

But is it welcome ?

Why should a Tamil give up Thayir Sadam and Sambhar, and agree to eat Dal-Roti, Fish curry and Pork Vindaloo, or give up Bharat Natyam to only dance Bihu just because some free-thinker came up with a brilliant suggestion to "homogenise" Indian culture ?

Get over your fixation about cuisines.
A Tamil and an Assamese already share my cultural beliefs. It is not of my concern how they dance or what they eat.
Last time I checked my Tamil colleagues enjoy Dal-Roti in our cafetaria, and chaste vegetarians relish hamburgers when in Munich.
But Muslims in my office do not share lunch table because they cannot make out whether the chicken curry is halal or jhatka.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Prem
BRFite


Joined: 01 Jul 1999
Posts: 428
Location: My Harem in Lahore.

PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 10:40 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
S. Valkan wrote:
Prem wrote:
I think , asking the followers of Islam on Indian sub-continenet to settle the issue is not demanding as much.


The issue is a question of identity or identities.

As Johann suggested, allow them make that choice.

Why are you making the choice for them ?


Valkan, Muslilms living in India cannot make the choice as it was taken from them in 65. They exercised this right to migrate to BD/PD till then.
That is why GOI need to raise the issue with these 2 countires and let Muslims make the choice thus settling the issue of they being willing part of India or not. Right now positive assertion of being Indians cannot be taken for granted 100 % . So allow them by giving them chance and choices.
How long we have to keep looking over shoulder and asking for reassurances . None of the civilized country has this kind of baggage and burden on the shoulder , why should we have this drawback. It has not served us right.

Last edited by Prem on 16 Aug 2006 10:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mirajuddin
BRFite -Trainee


Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 75
Location: plaistow

PostPosted: 16 Aug 2006 10:42 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
brothers
i am muslim and i would like my options to migrate to either pak or bd to be open who knows what things will look in a few years time
security is always more in numbers

[acharya]

S. Valkan wrote:
sroy wrote:
Artificial, because the consolidation process is not yet complete


When did consolidation begin ?

Under the Kuru dynasty, under Ashoka, under the Guptas, when ?

Quote:
once that is done we will be truly a civilizational state.


Please specify the nature of this "consolidation" youhave in mind, and how long it might realistically take.


Seriously, much before Kurus. If you are interested, you might want to read some works of David Frawely and Koenraad Elst. The dual purpose of their narratives/commentaries on RigVeda and its assorted material including Puranas (there is some excellent work by Frawely to harmonize the information in Vedas and Puranas), is to refute AIT and on the other hand they document the expansion of ancient Vedic (later day more generic Indic) culture from centre of area around Indus.

In addition to expansion over the sub-continet, expeditions to Mesopotamia, SE Asia and Tibet and beyond are also recorded.

By consolidation I mean gaining political control over territories which are already under our cultural influence.

Didn't the Maurya's and the Gupta's also try to do so?

By consolidation I also mean recovering lost territories. No nation in the last century has lost as much land as we have.

Of course the cultural component of your territories are never static. You can either strive for homogenization or in the long run cultural differentition among territories will cause some of them to break away. For this you'll need to continously incorporate culturally homegenous areas in your state.

The present state of the Indian Union is not desirable. We have territories that have inhabitants treating us mainstream folks like foriegners, but there are neighbouring countries where you'll feel at home.
Sending in Army, fighting insurgencies over decades may not cost us much, but in that respect many parts of the Indian Union resemble the famous failed state next door.
This is the proof that the current geograhical organization of the Indian Union is not based on any common undercurrent, that could bind us togather effortlessly...making of an artificial state.

Bismarck and Garibaldi succeeded because Germans and Italians already possesed a common religion and language.

mirajuddin wrote:
security is always more in numbers

Fundamental principle, this is why nation states consolidate their territories.

>>Valkan, Muslilms living in India cannot make the choice as it was taken from them in 65.

Sorry to intervene here, but you may be missing the point. The point is for India to make that option available. Whether Pakistan will do the same will be a testament to its conviction on the Two Nation Theory. On India's part, it will be giving an option to takleef-ridden bigots to opt out of freedom and democracy and pluralism and to opt in to the land of pure Islam next door.

Mirajuddin,

In an undeclared way, the option is open even now. You may find it surprising that it is Pakistan and Bangladesh who don't want you. Another point, as far as numbers are concerned, there are more in India than Pakistan or Bangladesh. Ironic, is it not?

[acharya]

S. Valkan wrote:

Now, given the fact that Indian culture is a heterogeneous composite including elements from Islamic sources, where does that leave your contention that Indian civilisation has nothing to do with Islam ?


It has nothing to do with Islam. Your example falls down right here. The Muslims themselves and we too agree that we have nothing in common. If both sides agree that we do not have anything in common, how the hell can you try to insert sameness? If you had any knowledge of Muslims, anywhere in the world, you would know that they are members of the Ummah. NOT, and never will be, of India. The same applies for Australia, and for any other non Muslim country.


S. Valkan wrote:

In other words, it has no end.

That's what I was looking for.


It has a definite end, when all Hindus are consolidated. Doesn't mean it will happen or will happen soon, but an end yes to all things there is. Certainly it will end when Hinduism ceases to exist.

S. Valkan wrote:

Is that "consolidation" of civilisation, culture, or merely usurpation of territory ?


There can be no usurpation of territory since the foreign invaders of those lands had no right to them.


S. Valkan wrote:
Does PoK and Aksai Chin ring a bell?


S. Valkan wrote:

Do you seriously entertain the belief that they WILL be recovered, ever ?


Quote:

India had gains in Pakistan Administered Kashmir (Azad Kashmir, Pakistan Occupied Kashmir), having captured the Haji Pir Pass eight kilometers inside Pakistani territory.

Forget about ever. India took back lots of Kashmir in 1965, but chose to hand it back. So yes, given Pakistan's uncertain future as a state, India will get Pok sooner or later. Aksai Chin is ???. Undetermined at this current date. Pakistan's breakup is absolutely certain. If China breaks up, then yes.

Mirajuddin,

>>menon in what way is the option open?

As a Muslim, are you prevented from emigrating to an Islamic country of your choice by India?

>>does the indian government approve it even in a tacit way.... well if it does I am not aware of it

That is why I said "undeclared"

>>there may be more numbers in india but muslims are still a minority that too not more than 13% in most regions save kashmir
to the muslims in south india migration was not practical during partition so werent they leftout?

You are the one who said "security is in numbers". I pointed out that the numbers are in India's favour.

>>tough it may seem a bit harsh most muslims in india do not consider themselves part of indian civillisation they look up to islamic civilisation and take pride in achievements of mughal and deccan sultanates

Is there any research or link that can verify your assertion?

>>so if you ask me ..is the partition complete.the answer os no

How would it be complete?

mr admin,
u deleted my post entirely... which cotained bashing of mirajuddin (language edited again. Please restrain your language - JE Menon). and i see u are trying to reason him out.

hope you get something out, but to me there is no solution to the islam's fascist plague. not all muslims are like this, but this scumbag is definitely infected. the number thing he talks about is a proff enough of rising muslim population. hum 5 hamare 25 is not a fictionally coinded up term.

this edited expletivecant be loyal to the land where he was bought up. if we Indians are so bad to minorities, then they would have dissapeared as did in Islamic Fascit Plague hit TSP and now BD.

the fact that this scumbag is alive and he is allowed to talk here is proof enough of big heart of Indians.

and I include in indians all those who are patriots. Religion and other factors are not a criteria for me. but sadly its criteria for many to do misdeeds, which made me shout a lot on forums some time ago.

at peace with myself and not posting much, this edited expletive couldnt be ignored. this IFP(Islamic Fascist Plague) hit edited expletive has no place anywhere.

Tapasvi,

I deleted your initial post which contained language that could have resulted in a ban warning, if not a ban. I chose not to warn you because of the incendiary nature of mirajuddin's post and therefore some flaring of tempers is to be expected. Please consider your language before posting.

India is not so weak that if someone says partition is not complete, it will be undermined. The Pakis are saying it all the time. Obviously some Indian muslims think the same. The argument needs to be defeated comprehensively.

I see you've made a second post, and I have edited again. Please restrain yourself.

points to be noted mylord

-this mirajuddin dosent seem like IM to me. a hiding TSP troll probably
-even if he shows like IM, he isnt representing them here.
-we should start differentiating IMs in plague hit, plague prone and patriots. and start trying to save plague prone and eliminated the plague hit ones. i see little hope for these plague hit to become patriots. these people out of their ouwn mentality and attitue have made themsele Dhobi Ka Doggie types.... na India ka n bahar ka... useless nothing nowhere.

(will keep my language in check sire)

Thanks for your understanding Tapasvi.

If he is a Pak trying to play games, then he will be drawn out and dispatched efficiently. But since he has claimed to be an Indian Muslim, let us give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

And even if he is IM, as you said, he is only representing himself.

I am awaiting his answers.

menon
it is dificult for non muslims to understand the minds of muslims
IMs do not consider themselves part of indian civilisation the reasons for that hmm may be the education that one gets in mosques or from learned elders who always stress the purity of arab cultures and traditions
again i am taking the risk of inviting the wrath and some foul language from EDITED people but if you are a muslim would you llike to identify with muhammed oF ghouri or with prithviraaj chauhan? after all most muslims in india are converts ?
IMs have a different identity probably forced upon them initially and they have no or very little affinity towards cholas cheras or maghad empire .
now i am not saying that IMS are traitors and will suport pakistan in event of conflicts all i am trying to say is that IMs as you call us have more in common with arab culture than hindu culture
and believe me there are lot of people who would like to live in pakistan because they fear hindu domination or have been relegiously discriminated against

mirajuddin,

I used IM as short for Indian Muslim. No offence was meant.

Regarding whom you feel affinity for, i.e. the Arabic over the Indic civilisation, that is your right. However, who is forcing you to make that choice? Why not feel an affinity for both? Does feeling an affinity for Arabic culture make you feel opposed to the Indian one? Why? What has Indian civilisation done to harm the Arabic one?

You have not answered my question regarding partition, which you said is incomplete. How would it be complete?

>>believe me there are lot of people who would like to live in pakistan because they fear hindu domination or have been relegiously discriminated against

Maybe there are. But what do you mean by Hindu domination? That Hindus are a majority? Other than that? Constitutionally a Muslim has as much personal freedom as a Hindu does. Discrimination exists in all societies, including Muslim ones, including Pakistan (ask the mohajirs). What is an example of religious discrimination against Muslims in India?

quote
JE Menon wrote:
What is an example of religious discrimination against Muslims in India?

1.That their expenses for the HAJ trip are beared by whole of India,why not the same done for Hindus who go for Kailash Mansarovar Yatra?
2.There is reservation for IM's in govt posts in Andhra Pradesh.
3.Whenever there have been riots in the past it's always been projected as Anti-Muslim,Anti-Sikh or Anti-NotHIndu.
4.There is no Uniform Civil code ,see the socio economic rules which a Hindu ought to abide by and a IM needent just because Quran says so. Evil or Very Mad


menon
Quote:
Why not feel an affinity for both?

Because both are antagonistic and nullify each other
Quote:
You have not answered my question regarding partition, which you said is incomplete. How would it be complete?

i meant partition was incomplete in demographic terms for most in the south there was no choice but to stay back given the distance and animosity between the two communities during that time.as a result manywho wanted but couldnt migrate stayed back nursing a dream of migrating one day .they thus dissosiated themselves from india and turned to relegion ,feeling more strongly about islamic issues than national issues

Quote:
What is an example of religious discrimination against Muslims in India?

answer me honestly menon dont you think in private sector muslims are discriminated against ?

mirajuddin wrote:
but if you are a muslim would you llike to identify with muhammed oF ghouri or with prithviraaj chauhan?


If you think as an individual or should i say if you THINK there would not be any confusion. The problem arises only when you bring the shadow of islam onto other identities and give artificial primacy to that.

BTW, whom do you identify with? Ghouri or Chauhan?

mirajuddin wrote:
IMs have a different identity probably forced upon them initially and they have no or very little affinity towards cholas cheras or maghad empire .

Who is forcing such a thing on you NOW? Why should muslims resort to herd mentality on everything and seek compliance with 7th century desert manual of copy-paste work.


Quote:
Why not feel an affinity for both?

Because both are antagonistic and nullify each other
Quote:
You have not answered my question regarding partition, which you said is incomplete. How would it be complete?

i meant partition was incomplete in demographic terms for most in the south there was no choice but to stay back given the distance and animosity between the two communities during that time.as a result manywho wanted but couldnt migrate stayed back nursing a dream of migrating one day .they thus dissosiated themselves from india and turned to relegion ,feeling more strongly about islamic issues than national issues

Quote:
What is an example of religious discrimination against Muslims in India?

answer me honestly menon dont you think in private sector muslims are discriminated against ?

answer me honestly menon dont you think in private sector muslims are discriminated against ?

If companies like Wipro,Cipla,wokhardt are indeed indulging in any form of discrimination , then i think that they must have some valid reasons for doing so.

Do you really think that muslims are flourishing in india inspite of the discrimination?


honestly mr maan
no offence meant read india today latest issue you will get al the info

mirajuddin wrote:
honestly mr maan
no offence meant read india today latest issue you will get al the info


Why to bother about india today's views? we are interested in your THOUGHTS.

[ramana]

Does anyone know if there is a movement to write Urdu in Devnagari lipi? That would have a lot of benefits- more accesible to Hindi reading population, makes Urdu into a Indian language and reinforces its Indian indentity. As far as I kow except for the sub-continent no one knows Urdu. And Urdu has mostly Hindusthani words with a smattering of Persian, Trukish and Arabic words.

And as the population of Urdu knowing Indian people gets bigger it removes one more prop of the TSP!

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Sep 11 2006, 12:52 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Sep 11 2006, 12:52 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Does anyone know if there is a movement to write Urdu in Devnagari lipi? That would have a lot of benefits- more accesible to Hindi reading population, makes Urdu into a Indian language and reinforces its Indian indentity. As far as I kow except for the sub-continent no one knows Urdu. And Urdu has mostly Hindusthani words with a smattering of Persian, Trukish and Arabic words.

And as the population of Urdu knowing Indian people gets bigger it removes one more prop of the TSP!
[right][snapback]57198[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yes. In 80s and 90s several magazines and news papers came up with Urdu in Dev Nagari script. Especially in UP and Bihar, such Urdu is very popular. Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav has done a lot to reverse that trend by making Urdu the second state language of UP, written in arabic script. If you visit Noida or Greater Noida, you would be surprised to find software technology parks etc, with signs in urdu (in addition to English, Hindi)

Urdu is official language of 1 state - Kashmir....which I think is ironic to not be Kashmiri but Urdu. That makes Kashmiri the only language of national charter not being official language of any Indian state.

(I thought it may be interesting to note: the birth of word 'Urdu' is from percian 'Orudu' - which means Hords or Camps. This was the language which evolved with islamic invasions)

[Guest]

'Conversion invisible threat to Hindus'
[ 18 Sep, 2006 1932hrs ISTPTI ]


RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

NEW DELHI: RSS chief K S Sudarshan on Monday suggested conversion and demographic change in parts of India posed an 'invisible threat' to Hindu society.

There is 'an invisible and silent attack being waged against the community to weaken it from inside', he said adding "we have to remain vigilant against such attempts".

Sudarshan was releasing a book written by Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy here.

He said that after the wave of foreign invasions right from Mughals to the British the country was "losing its focus and identity".

"Hindus should awaken and search for their identity to defeat evil forces who are trying to destroy their culture," he said and asked everyone to raise their voice against religious conversion. <!--emo&:cool--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/specool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='specool.gif' /><!--endemo-->
dharmo rakshati rakshitah - Manusmriti.
Dharma would save you, if you save it.

[Shambhu]

<!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
for Hindus who have lost their identity..(and Hindus as well as non-Hindus who would like to know..):

How people over the ages have tried to copy Hinduism and "improve" it...and check the daily terrorism related news to see how this attempt at "improvement" has succeeded in quantitative terms but has *failed spectacularly* in qualitative terms..

(Remember reading parts of this vaguely..but just found this in a post somewhere on IF..don't know which, thanks to computer crash <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> ...it was in an email received by Capt MNK I think...)

Hindu Footprints Everywhere

<!--emo&:cool--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/specool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='specool.gif' /><!--endemo-->