10-25-2006, 06:06 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Outrage in Hardwar </b>
Pioneer.com
<i>By hosting iftar at Har-ki-Pauri in Hardwar, Mulayam Singh Yadav has poured scorn on Hindu sentiments, says Prafull Goradia </i>
It is easy to ascribe Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav's iftar at Har-ki-Pauri on October 14 as a vote-catching stunt. There is, however, more to it for the simple reason that he is often described as a protecter of the Muslims and has been complimented by being called "maulana".
He is so well entrenched with his vote-bank that there was no need for him to take the anti-Hindu step of violating the British Act of 1940 whereby Muslims and masjids are forbidden in Hardwar. Especially, breaking a law, which should invite criminal punishment. There must be something compulsive rather than calculative about his bizarre humiliation of the Hindus. Surely, <b>Mr Yadav knows that no non-Muslim can put his foot on the soil of either Mecca or Medina</b>.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>There is a segment of Hindu leaders who derive satisfaction out of self-flagellation; get pleasure out of pain. Or else, how could one explain the surrender historically to 'dhimmitude' or protected non-citizenship whose outstanding feature was the payment of jizya. </span>
The other humiliations included not holding any religious ceremonies in public nor proselytising or preventing any kin from embracing Islam. Not ride on saddle nor wear swords nor construct buildings higher than those of Muslims. Nor attempt to resemble Muslims in any way; to make sure that Christians wore blue and Jews yellow signs on their attire to signify their dhimmitude. These were some of the terms of the contract signed in 720 AD between Caliph Omar II and the local Christian and Jewish leaders who represented the minorities.
During the Mughal period, Hindus were estimated to be about 90 per cent of the population and, by no means, in a minority. Yet they submitted themselves to a dhimmi status in different parts of the country beginning with Mohammed bin Qasim who conquered Sindh in 712 AD.
There is no historical record of a public murmur not to speak of a protest or rebellion against jizya. When the reputedly liberal Akbar ascended the throne at Agra in 1556 AD, he imposed jizya. For reasons of political expediency, a few years later, he abolished jizya but reimposed the poll tax in 1575 to placate the orthodox sections of his court. The Hindu leaders did not say anything one way or the other.
<b>The reigns of Jahangir and Shah Jahan were jizya free whereas Aurangzeb brought the tax back with a vengeance. Remarkably again, he got away with its reimposition without a Hindu protest. Mirza Raja Jaisingh and other Hindu generals at his court continued to fight for him loyally.</b>
Just as the Arabs conquered Sindh in 712, the Moors a year earlier overran Spain. The conquerors had their say and way for the best part of eight centuries. Yet, the Christians did not give up and, after a struggle, threw out the Moors.
The Jews suffered the Holocaust whereby six million of them were exterminated by the Nazis. Yet, they rose again in the shape of Israel to dominate their region of the Arab peninsula.
On the other hand, Hindu civilisation is yet to get its act back and come into its own. It is not for the lack of opportunity. By their two-century-long presence in India, the British did provide a level playing field between the Hindus and the Muslims.
<b>The Partition certainly offered in Hindustan an exclusive opportunity for Hindu rule to flourish. Yet today, the Muslims call the tune rather than the Hindus playing their own piano</b>.
Does this unusual phenomenon mean that the Hindu civilisation, over the medieval centuries, underwent a metamorphosis whereby it abdicated its desire to rule and preferred to be subservient? Were the Hindus affected by a kind of virus, which introduced in some of them, especially their leaders, a mentality reminiscent of slavishness?
There is a popular joke about crabs in a basket which do not allow one another to crawl upwards to freedom. They pull one another down continually. There are people in our country whose busiest preoccupation is to pull others down rather than trying to move up themselves. To curse one's own country and community is another way of gratifying a slavish frustrated ego.
<b>Even Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a casualty. During 1921 at Malabar, the Moplahs raped; butchered and converted thousands of Hindus, which horrified number of leaders</b>, including Annie Besant, the Irish woman who later, became president of the Congress. <b>Gandhi praised the Moplahs for being "among the bravest in the land. They are god-fearing". Soon thereafter, he wrote, "Our Moplah brothers have gone mad... They have committed a sin against the Khilafat and against our own country."</b>
The iftar hosted by Mr Yadav at Hardwar is one more in a long series of masochistic actions by members of the Indian leadership. Instead of inflicting pain upon them personally, the leaders inflict humiliation upon their community. It was an Austrian named <span style='color:red'>Sacher Masoch after whom this disorder is known for; he researched on the subject.</span>
<b>He called it a satisfaction he gained by being beaten and subjugated. As another psychologist put it, the term masochism is frequently used in a looser social context in which masochism is defined as the behaviour of one who seeks and enjoys situations of humiliation or abuse. The question before us as a nation is what should be done with psychologically imbalanced leaders? </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com
<i>By hosting iftar at Har-ki-Pauri in Hardwar, Mulayam Singh Yadav has poured scorn on Hindu sentiments, says Prafull Goradia </i>
It is easy to ascribe Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav's iftar at Har-ki-Pauri on October 14 as a vote-catching stunt. There is, however, more to it for the simple reason that he is often described as a protecter of the Muslims and has been complimented by being called "maulana".
He is so well entrenched with his vote-bank that there was no need for him to take the anti-Hindu step of violating the British Act of 1940 whereby Muslims and masjids are forbidden in Hardwar. Especially, breaking a law, which should invite criminal punishment. There must be something compulsive rather than calculative about his bizarre humiliation of the Hindus. Surely, <b>Mr Yadav knows that no non-Muslim can put his foot on the soil of either Mecca or Medina</b>.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>There is a segment of Hindu leaders who derive satisfaction out of self-flagellation; get pleasure out of pain. Or else, how could one explain the surrender historically to 'dhimmitude' or protected non-citizenship whose outstanding feature was the payment of jizya. </span>
The other humiliations included not holding any religious ceremonies in public nor proselytising or preventing any kin from embracing Islam. Not ride on saddle nor wear swords nor construct buildings higher than those of Muslims. Nor attempt to resemble Muslims in any way; to make sure that Christians wore blue and Jews yellow signs on their attire to signify their dhimmitude. These were some of the terms of the contract signed in 720 AD between Caliph Omar II and the local Christian and Jewish leaders who represented the minorities.
During the Mughal period, Hindus were estimated to be about 90 per cent of the population and, by no means, in a minority. Yet they submitted themselves to a dhimmi status in different parts of the country beginning with Mohammed bin Qasim who conquered Sindh in 712 AD.
There is no historical record of a public murmur not to speak of a protest or rebellion against jizya. When the reputedly liberal Akbar ascended the throne at Agra in 1556 AD, he imposed jizya. For reasons of political expediency, a few years later, he abolished jizya but reimposed the poll tax in 1575 to placate the orthodox sections of his court. The Hindu leaders did not say anything one way or the other.
<b>The reigns of Jahangir and Shah Jahan were jizya free whereas Aurangzeb brought the tax back with a vengeance. Remarkably again, he got away with its reimposition without a Hindu protest. Mirza Raja Jaisingh and other Hindu generals at his court continued to fight for him loyally.</b>
Just as the Arabs conquered Sindh in 712, the Moors a year earlier overran Spain. The conquerors had their say and way for the best part of eight centuries. Yet, the Christians did not give up and, after a struggle, threw out the Moors.
The Jews suffered the Holocaust whereby six million of them were exterminated by the Nazis. Yet, they rose again in the shape of Israel to dominate their region of the Arab peninsula.
On the other hand, Hindu civilisation is yet to get its act back and come into its own. It is not for the lack of opportunity. By their two-century-long presence in India, the British did provide a level playing field between the Hindus and the Muslims.
<b>The Partition certainly offered in Hindustan an exclusive opportunity for Hindu rule to flourish. Yet today, the Muslims call the tune rather than the Hindus playing their own piano</b>.
Does this unusual phenomenon mean that the Hindu civilisation, over the medieval centuries, underwent a metamorphosis whereby it abdicated its desire to rule and preferred to be subservient? Were the Hindus affected by a kind of virus, which introduced in some of them, especially their leaders, a mentality reminiscent of slavishness?
There is a popular joke about crabs in a basket which do not allow one another to crawl upwards to freedom. They pull one another down continually. There are people in our country whose busiest preoccupation is to pull others down rather than trying to move up themselves. To curse one's own country and community is another way of gratifying a slavish frustrated ego.
<b>Even Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a casualty. During 1921 at Malabar, the Moplahs raped; butchered and converted thousands of Hindus, which horrified number of leaders</b>, including Annie Besant, the Irish woman who later, became president of the Congress. <b>Gandhi praised the Moplahs for being "among the bravest in the land. They are god-fearing". Soon thereafter, he wrote, "Our Moplah brothers have gone mad... They have committed a sin against the Khilafat and against our own country."</b>
The iftar hosted by Mr Yadav at Hardwar is one more in a long series of masochistic actions by members of the Indian leadership. Instead of inflicting pain upon them personally, the leaders inflict humiliation upon their community. It was an Austrian named <span style='color:red'>Sacher Masoch after whom this disorder is known for; he researched on the subject.</span>
<b>He called it a satisfaction he gained by being beaten and subjugated. As another psychologist put it, the term masochism is frequently used in a looser social context in which masochism is defined as the behaviour of one who seeks and enjoys situations of humiliation or abuse. The question before us as a nation is what should be done with psychologically imbalanced leaders? </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->