crossposted from Bharatnirbhaya
I request the members of this list to revisit RISA-L archives and see the
current spate of discussions. Some members of that list,
(including a member of our list who participates here just to shoot and
scoot, and who is a well known professional Hindu hater), seeks to tarnish
their own colleagues using the 'guilt by association' tactic. This is
reminiscent of the way Nazis extinguished (or inflamed!) inconvenient
bodies, views.... by associating them with the hated 'other' viz., the Jews.
Visit URL [url="http://www.sandiego.edu/theo/risa-l/archive/maillist.html"]http://www.sandiego.edu/theo/risa-l/archiv...e/maillist.html[/url]
The tone, tenor, content of many of the messages on that 'respectable,
scholarly' list is so similar to the mob hysteria of Jihadi meetings, where
members snarl, show clenched fists, bare their canines... It reminds me of
cover pics in an issue of Newsweek
(or Time) showing a rally of Jihadis with their fangs bared, eyes wide open
and red.
What is striking in this whole discussion is the virtual non- participation
of Indians and practicing Hindus. The silence is very eloquent, it is
clearly indicative of the intense pressures they have to work under. The
environment they face day after day is demeaning to Hindus, to Indians. It
is natural that they do not want to invite trouble. At the same time, they
appear to disapprove Paul Courtright's pornography passing off as academic
scholarship.
Whatever be the context of the passages cited from his book in the HSC
petition (except if they are quoted as a purvapaksha), they are pure
pornography. In fact, coupled with the picture of balaganesha on the cover,
they may well be treated as a case of child pornography. The fact that so
many 'respectable' RISA specialists are completely mum on this aspect and
are rather gunning after MLBD in the most intimidating fashion, shows the
clear agenda and face of these protesting 'scholars'. It is to promote
hatred against Hindus and Hindu Dharma in the guise of scholarship. The
pattern of their behaviour, replicated day after day, should clinch the
issue. If people need more proof of the perversity that goes by the name
scholarship, please take some time to visit the June 2001 archives of
[url="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indology"]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indology[/url] where once again the tip of the
iceberg (racist and other prejudices of Indologists against India and
Hindus) is visible. For another sample, see some quotes at
[url="http://vishalagarwal.bharatvani.org/freud.html"]http://vishalagarwal.bharatvani.org/freud.html[/url]
We can ignore some unfair coconuts (brown outside, wannabe white beneath and
largely hollow inside) like the adminstrator of that list who promotes
adharma and claims to uphold RISA-dharma!
Again, the question is not of free speech. The question is of mixing
pornography with 'scholarship'. The question is whether we will continue to
treat the nudity of our kids as something non-offensive of whether some
perverts will give sexual interpretations to something as natural as the
trunk of Gajanana.
SUPPORTING MLBD: Let us act positive here now. We need to thank Motilal
Banarsidass for their principles stand. Their email is mlbd@vsnl.com and it
should be addressed to Rajeev Jain. More than that, let us place an order
for their books, either directly from outside India or via our relatives in
India. In case some of us have been their patrons (for instance I have
purchased Rs 15000 worth of books in 2001-2002 and the order for 2003 has
been sent via a friend in India), let us remind them of this. Please visit
their website at [url="http://www.newagebooksindia.com/link.htm"]http://www.newagebooksindia.com/link.htm[/url]
I urge you to place an order soon, either directly from the US or via your
friends in India. Their books are priced very reasonably. And they have tons
of titles of great worth.
Of course, do not buy books by Patrick Olivelle, Cynthia Humes (not that she
has any), Robert Zydenbos (not that he would have any) and so on. If they
boycott and intimidate Hindus, we will boycott their books.
Please, Please spread this message (especially the part on buying books from
MLBD, and thanking them via letters) on various lists of Indians and Hindus.
We really need to do this as a token of our appreciation. The owners of MLBD
are devout Hindus/Jains, a fact I know for sure through mutual acquaitances.
They see their work not merely as a profession but also as a dharmic act. We
need to support them. Remember that MLBD has completed 100 yrs of their
existence and are currently offering an additional 10% discount for all
purchases above Rs 500.
Sincerely,
Vishal Agarwal
An excerpt froom RISA-L. Prof Balagangadhara's response to some scurrilous allegations. Note that Bharatvani is referred to as a 'filth factory'. Of course it is not mentioned where and what the filth is
Dear Friends,
Dear Deepak,
Off-list, I received some puzzled reactions to my statement about
defamation. Perhaps, spelling some things out would help.
1. Here is what Stephen Brown says about Rajiv Malhotra: "I have personally
been witness to the verbally violent interrogation and attack of scholars by
individuals acting "on his request" at the past two AAR annual meetings, and
have heard by word of mouth of other incidents at other major academic
conferences (such as the Tantra conference in Flagstaff, AZ)."
1.1. If Stephen Brown is a "witness" to "violent attack and interrogation"
on scholars by people acting on Rajiv Malhotra's "request", it means that
Stephen Brown has himself *heard* Rajiv Malhotra requesting some individuals
to "violently attack and interrogate" people. If he has, he should *name*
the individuals, who have acted thus in "the past two AAR meetings", and
specify the "times" (it must have happened at least twice), where and when
Rajiv Malhotra made this request. If he cannot, he is indulging in libel.
1.2. He claims to have "heard by word of mouth of other incidents". This is
plain defamation of character.
2. About Zydenbos.
2.1. He speaks about Bharatvani thus: "Bharatvani is a cyberspace outlet of
the Hindutva filth factory." He claims to be "disappointed and troubled"
that I am listed there as "an author". One presumes that he is not troubled
by the fact that Baharatvani lists me as "an author" (and not, for instance,
as a carpenter). So, one has to assume that his feelings stem from the fact
this "filth factory" lists me as a "producer". Being the kind of factory it
is, it can only approvingly refer to a 'producer of filth'. He is, however,
not convinced that I am no producer of filth; he is troubled that I could be
one. Hence he asks me to "request Bharatvani to remove my name from their
pages" unless, of course, he says the inclusion of my name finds my
"approval". So, I am guilty by association: if a fascist approvingly cites
Darwin or Einstein, they are fascists too.
2.2. I am included in the same page among "well-known names" (so, what is
the problem?), including a "fellow who campaigns against this list as a
whole (as well as against academic freedom and freedom of the press, as the
present Courtright case has shown)". So, one has to assume that the
adjective "well-known" is meant to refer to a group, which includes such a
"fellow" as the above, who is against "academic freedom and freedom of the
press" and such other things. Again, guilty by association.
2.3. That I am called Prof. Balu is used to make the following innuendo: "If
I were Prof. Balu (as he is fondly named also in more than one message on
the aforementioned vociferous Yahoogroups list)". This group is
unflatteringly referred to both in terms of "the level and nature of
intellectual content and the style of presentation" and the "kind of crowd
populates that part of cyberspace". If they *fondly* refer to me as Prof.
Balu, what does it say about me? This is another insinuation. Zydenbos does
not know or care to know that I am referred to as 'Balu' everywhere: in
India, in Belgium, in the US, and by my friends and by my enemies. This
shortened form is simply to make me appear suspect.
2.4. Then, of course, he proffers his ruminations: "Perhaps a glance at
Bharatvani helps us hermeneutically to gain an insight into the intentions
behind the writings coming out of Ghent." Now, these innuendos are supposed
to help the reader understand the *intentions* (of all things!) of writings
coming from my University. Not only am I and Jakob De Roover damned, but any
one else coming from my university.
2.5. In light of all this, his wish: "I believe that Prof. Balu (note how
Zeydenbos also 'fondly' calls me) put himself up here for election to
something a while back... I wish the voters sagaciousness and all the best."
3. Because this is a moderated list, the listserv is liable if someone takes
it into his/her head to prosecute for libel. It hosts the content, and, as a
moderated list, it is assumed that all messages are approved.
4. In any case, it is just about conceivable that my next response to libel
and innuendo's will not be a friendly warning. I hope earnestly that people
like Stephen Brown and Zydenbos also realise that they cannot simply go
around assassinating the characters and reputations of people with impunity.
Friendly greetings,
Balu
How many people here knows about Kalki Puran and heard about kalki avatar?
<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> :blow
[quote name='tovishal2003' date='Nov 12 2003, 03:38 AM']How many people here knows about Kalki Puran and heard about kalki avatar?
<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />Â :blow[/quote]
You know, many in Pakistan say that Mohammad was Kalki, so hindus should follow him. I personally think that Kalki puran is a later addition to hindu literature which mimics mesianic judeo-christian theology. but I have been wrong often enough.
parshuram,
i didn't got exactly what you meant.Kalki is also mentioned in Gita.Krishna said he will come back the day materialism king will rule world, to restore proper cultural order(vedic?).
[quote name='tovishal2003' date='Nov 12 2003, 12:05 PM'] Krishna said he will come back the day materialism king will rule world, to restore proper cultural order(vedic?). [/quote]
Aur main aa gaya! <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> (just kidding!)
On a serious note, L&G, if Lord Ram and Lord Krishna are the 2 avatars of Vishnu, who's the third. Has he come, yet.
Also, like Vishal mentioned Lord Krishna was suppose to come back in the Kal-yug. Isn't this the kalyug? <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />
PS. Sorry for the naive Qs. I'm just learning!
[quote name='Krishna' date='Nov 13 2003, 02:49 AM'] On a serious note, L&G, if Lord Ram and Lord Krishna are the 2 avatars of Vishnu, who's the third. Has he come, yet.
[/quote]
Krishanji: Haven't you heard of the [url="http://www.panchangam.com/dasha.htm"]'dasha' (10) avataars[/url]?
[quote name='tovishal2003' date='Nov 12 2003, 11:35 PM'] parshuram,
i didn't got exactly what you meant.Kalki is also mentioned in Gita.Krishna said he will come back the day materialism king will rule world, to restore proper cultural order(vedic?). [/quote]
Seriously, I have read Pakis writing on Hindu scriptures concerning Kalki, and comparing the writen prophecies to Mohammad's life, saying that Kalki has already come (ie Mohammad). About mention in the Gita, I was not aware of this. Could you give me a reference to this in Bhadavad Gita? I would like to look it up. Thanks.
[quote name='Sudhir' date='Nov 12 2003, 04:22 PM'] Krishanji: Haven't you heard of the [url="http://www.panchangam.com/dasha.htm"]'dasha' (10) avataars[/url]? [/quote]
Actually, I did, when I was a kid. But never listened when elders were talking! <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> (So gotta start from the beginning, now! <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> )
Anyway, why does my niddle is still stuck on the phrase of 4 avatars of Vishnu are supposed to come on earth. Is there any story about the 4 avatars?
Intellectual Censorship in Islam: A Matter of Life and Death
[url="http://www.faithfreedom.org"]http://www.faithfreedom.org[/url]
By Susan Stephan
Many seem to believe that The Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie
is the only intellectual who has ever been persecuted for âinsulting Islam.â But the story does not begin â nor does it end â with Rushdie. Writers, poets, intellectuals and free-thinkers have been suffering â and dying -- for âinsulting Islamâ for more than 1400 years.
One of the more famous victims was Mansur Al-Hallaj. Al-Hallaj was a 10th-Century Sufi (Islamic mystic) master, famous today for being a mentor of popular Sufi poet Rumi. The specific charge was uttering âI am the Eternal Truth.â (Only Allah can be âThe Eternal Truthâ in Islam.) This was simply the logical outcome of Al-Hallajâs Sufi beliefs, which held that âGodâ is found in all of us. It was, however, blasphemy according to the followers of Imam Hanbal (founder of Sunni Islamâs most reactionary school of Islamic law), who engineered Al-Hallajâs persecution and eventual execution by crucifixion.
Today the weapon is more likely to be a gun or a knife than a cross, but Imams and mullahs and their collaborators are still killing or persecuting Al-Hallajâs modern-day heirs and getting away with it. Here are just a few of the prominent victims from the last 20 years:
Ali Dashti
Iranian statesman and Islamic historian. Dashti was imprisoned and tortured to death in Iran in the early 1980s for writing â23 Years,â a âwarts-and-allâ biography of the Prophet of Islam.
Hitoshi Igarashi
Japanese translator of The Satanic Verses, was stabbed to death in July 1991.
Ettore Caprioli, Italian translator of The Satanic Verses, was attacked with a knife in the same year, but survived
Aziz Nesin, Turkisk publisher and writer, who had printed extracts of The Satanic Verses in a Turkish newspaper, was attacked by a crazed religious mob in 1993
They cornered him in a hotel and set it on fire, killing 37 people, but Nesin, an elderly man in his late 70s, escaped.
William Nygaard, Norwegian translator and publisher of Rushdieâs book. Nygaard was shot four times in the back in 1993 by an Islamic extremist.
Naguib Mafouz
world-famous Egyptian author and Nobel Laureate. An elderly man in his 80s, Mafouz narrowly escaped a knife attack in 1994, after Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahmame, spiritual leader of the armed fundamentalist group al-Gama'a al Islamiyya, issued a death fatwa on his head. His âcrimeâ: writing a book decades before that âinsulted Islam.â Mafouz, physically and mentally traumatized by the attack, no longer writes.
Taslima Nasrin
a Bangladeshi-born physician, poet and author. In 1993 Nasrin, a self-declared apostate, was sentenced to death by Muslim clerics for âinsulting Islam.â That year 300,000 people demonstrated in her native land, calling for the poet to be burned alive. She escaped to the West, but still hides, her life blighted by a price on her head and not one but two death fatwas issued by pious Muslim clerics.
Farag Foda
An Egyptian writer and human rights defender. Foda was shot dead by militants from an Islamic fundamentalist group after being branded as an apostate by officials at Al-Azhar, the leading Islamic educational institute in the world.
<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />  kull Anwar Sheikh
a Kashmir-born man of letters, was targeted with a death fatwa for writing books that explored the imperialist nature of Islam. As a young man, Sheikh admitted to have been a fundamentalist who murdered innocent non-Muslims in cold blood during the partition of India in 1947. He now lives discreetly in a Western nation. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' /> kull
Nasr Abu Zaid
Egyptian Quranic scholar. Abu Zaid was convicted in Egypt of being an apostate from Islam in 1995. He was involuntarily divorced from his wife of many years for advancing the cause of textual criticism of the Quran. He escaped to the West in fear of his life as a convicted apostate, where he reunited with his wife, but remains a target for assassination from Islamic fanatics.
Rashad Khalifa
Islamic reformer, an Egyptian immigrant to the USA. Khalifa was founder of a controversial movement in Islam called the âSubmittersâ, who deny the authenticity of many Islamic traditions. Declared an apostate in a fatwa issued by 38 Islamic scholars in Saudi Arabia, Khalifa was murdered in 1990 in Tuscon, Arizona. Although the crime was never solved, the prime suspects have been linked to the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization led by Osama Bin Laden.
Matoub Lounes
Popular Algerian song-writer, political activist for Algeriaâs Berber people, and singer, Lounes was murdered in 1998. The murder remains unsolved, but the radical Islamic gang, the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), is the main suspect. The GIA had kidnapped Lounes in 1994 and held him hostage for two weeks.
Dr. Younis Shaikh a Pakistani physician and lecturer. Convicted of blasphemy in Pakistan in 2001 for the âcrimeâ of stating the Prophet of Islamâs parents were not Muslim and the prophet was not circumsized. Sentenced to death in August 2001, Shaikh at this writing (January 2002) languishes in jail while his sentence is appealed.
Robert Hussein (Born Hussein Qâamber Ali)
a Kuwaiti-born businessman. A former Shiite Muslim, Hussein was convicted of apostasy by an Islamic court in his native land in 1996 for the âcrimeâ of converting to Christianity. He escaped to the West under threat of death with assistance from Christian missionary groups and published a book called âApostate Son.â
Nawal El-Saddaawi
Egyptian feminist and author of many books. In 2001, El-Saddaawi narrowly escaped conviction in her native land as an apostate. A conviction would have forced El-Saddaawi to divorce her husband in recognition of Islamic law that Muslims cannot remain married to apostates. Her âcrimeâ was stating that the Muslim Hajj pilgrimage had Pagan historical origins. Once imprisoned for her outspoken feminist views, El-Saddawi courageously remains in Egypt although clearly a target for assassination from a radical Islamist.
Tahmineh Milni, an acclaimed Iranian filmmaker. Arrested in August 2001 and charged by Iranâs Islamic religious establishment with âwaging war against Godâ, Milni could be executed if found guilty of the charge. Her âcrimeâ was making a film that contained references to the miserable conditions of women under the Islamic regime of Iran.
Khalid Duran, Moroccan/German academic and critic of Islamic extremism. In 2001, Duran, while teaching at the university level in the U.S., evoked death threats from the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan for writing a book called âChildren Of Abraham: Explaining Islam to Jews.â The death threat was the direct result of an anti-Duran public realtions crusade engineered by the Washington, DC-based Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Duran went into hiding as a result of the Jordanian edict. Curiously, Islamic apologist Dr. John Esposito of Georgetown Universityâs âCenter for Muslim-Christian Understandingâ gave the keynote speech at CAIRâs annual fund-raising dinner only a few months after this incident occurred, seemingly untroubled by CAIRâs role in soliciting the murder of a fellow academic.
Mahmoud Muhammed Talal, Islamic reformer, Sudan
Talal wrote many books criticizing Sharia (Islamic law). He was convicted of apostasy and creating âfitnahâ (religious tourmoil) by an Islamic court in Sudan and hanged for this âcrimeâ in 1985.
The above is only a small representation the number of intellectuals, writers, artists and reformers who have been systemically terrorized, imprisoned and even assassinated by Islamic thought police on all continents, even in the so-called âfreeâ West. (As the Norwegian national William Nygaard and the U.S.-resident Khalid Duran can undoubtedly confirm). This âcensorship by terrorismâ not only shows the widespread lack of intellectual maturity that is prevalent in the Islamic world today, but also begs a more disturbing question: how accurate are of many of the books and articles currently being published about Islam?
If an author or academic addressing the subject of Islam, whether in fact or fiction, must continually look over his shoulder for the knife or gun of a fanatic, it should not surprise us that many such works tread a very thin line between truth and apologia. The bland books about Islam authored by the likes of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito have never elicited any death threats or fanatical attention; astute readers may well ask themselves why?
[url="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20031115/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_explosion_18"]Bombing in Turkey[/url]
Islamists on a ramapage. It is clear they are trying to hit as many soft targets as possible so that they give an impression of strength. But it does suggest that the civilizational struggle is hardly on the decline.
For those interested, here is an interpretation of Bhavishya Puranam. This may not be the greatest source, since many seem "biased" against other religion. But as most of the Hindu texts hold a very observing view of everything in the world, I can believe this interpretation. Also, I guess the strength of most of the ancient scriptures of India is in this - the observing, and unemotional and objective view of everything.
http://www.indiadivine.org/bhavishya-purana.htm
The Bhavishya Puranam is a treatise of the "future" from the perspective of Indian saints, just like the Nadi Jothidam by Sage Agasthya.
When I try to connect various happenings in this world to the idea of a Kali Yuga and the pralay (destruction) and the creation beginning again - it seems to fit in well. The way the world is going "ruled" by people of the most devious characters, we could see that Kalki avatar is a must, and the destruction and the rotting of the world at the hands of this Islamic terrorists, and Biblical evangelists is an unfortunate fate, and we are just a part of the continuom of creation and destruction is just an elobrate plan. Finally, Hindu "fatalism" makes sense <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Eswar
I was actually searching for this thread ...
Here is a link that I posted in BRF Paki thread sometime back.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EK25Df04.html
I am posting part of the article that is relevant to the thread.
Any one has more links to Bipin Chandra Pal's work ? By looking at what Bipin Chandra Pal had to say almost a century ago (90+ years), I get the feeling that India didn't lack the strategic views. But somewhere down in the middle during 1947 till 1990, Indians messed up and screwed their own future to some extent.
Here is the part from the link ....
The ease with which the BJP leaders have dealt with Muslim leaders in various countries is astonishing to those who are aware of their background as alumni of the Rashtriya Swayamewak Sangh (RSS), the ideological mentor and progenitor of all Hindu fundamentalist organizations in India. RSS ideologues have long believed in and have been waiting for the clash of civilizations. Almost 90 years before Samuel Huntington wrote his famous essay on the impending clash of civilizations and later developed it into a book with the same title, and decades before even the RSS was formally organized in 1925, Bipin Chandra Pal, a Hindu nationalist leader of India's freedom movement, had foreseen this clash among various civilizations and predicted that Hindu civilization will side with the Judeo-Christian West in its war against Islamic and Chinese civilizations.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pal's essays and articles written almost a century ago make fascinating reading. A genuine thinker and visionary, Pal propounded his theories despite the fact that he considered the West as the greatest danger to humanity and was a great admirer of Islam's spiritual values. He thought that Islam was going to conquer large parts of the world, through its power of propaganda and not through war. He considered this inevitable. He was, however, scared of Islam's political manipulation. He foresaw the dangers of political Islam, which he considered an aberration. For, in his view, Islam is not only "extra-territorial" in its ideology, but also "extra-political". <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>In order to appreciate better the mindset and intellectual training the BJP leaders have received, we can do nothing better than read brief excerpts from some of Pal's original writings</b>. Despite the archaic early 20th century prose style, these passages are quite exciting. In a collection of his essays entitled "Nationality and Empire", Pal writes under the sub-head Pan-Islamism and Pan-Mongolianism:
"This Pan-European combination [that we now call the West] will be a very serious menace to the non-European world. It will be bound to come into serious conflict with both Pan-Islamism and Pan-Mongolianism. If Europe can settle her internal jealousies betimes, she will be able to dominate easily both the Islamic and the Mongolian world. Nothing will prevent in that case the parceling out of the Muslim lands on the one side, and of China on the other. But that is not very likely. It will take, at least, as long a time for the European chancelleries to forget their past jealousies and present rivalries, as it will take for China, now that she has awakened from the sleep of ages, to put her own house in order and organize her leviathan strength to hold her own against all the world.
"The same thing is likely to happen in the Islamic world also; and the fall of Turkey in Europe will hasten this combination. It will not be an organized confederacy like that of China and Japan, but a far more dangerous, because more subtle, combination of the hearts of countless hordes who hold nothing so dear, neither land nor life, as their religion. And the real strength of this Pan-Islamic outburst will come from Egypt and India [which then included present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh], where it will be safe from the crushing weight of the Pan-European confederacy. England will not allow her European confederates to interfere with her own domestic affairs; such interference would break up the confederation at once. She will have to settle this Pan-Islamic problem, so far as it may affect her own dominions, herself."
Then describing where the danger for India will come from, he writes under the title "Our Real Danger". "And it is just here that our safety from this possible Pan-European combination also lies. Because of the British connection, India will have nothing to fear from any possible combination of the European powers. The same is also true of Egypt, though perhaps in a lesser degree. Our real menace will come not from Europe but from Asia, not from Pan-Europeanism but from Pan-Islamism and Pan-Mongolianism. These dangers are, however, common, both to India and Egypt and Great Britain. To provide against it, Great Britain will have to find and work out a satisfactory and permanent settlement of the Indian and the Egyptian problem, and we, on our part, will have also to come to some rational compromise with her. British statesmanship must recognize the urgent and absolute need of fully satisfying the demands of Indian and Egyptian nationalism, and India and Egypt will have to frankly accept the British connection - which is different from British subjection - as a necessary condition of their national life and freedom. To wantonly seek to break up this connection, while it will only hurt Great Britain, may positively kill every chance and possibility of either Indian or Egyptian nationalism ever realizing itself."
Predicting and pleading the need for the alliance of the West and India, he writes under the sub-head "Our True Safety". "Indian nationalism in any case, has, I think, really no fear of being permanently opposed or crippled by Great Britain. On the contrary, the British connection can alone offer its effective protection against both the Pan-Islamic and the Pan-Mongolianism menace. As long as we had to consider Great Britain alone or any other European Power for the matter of that, while thinking of the future of Indian nationalism, the problem was comparatively simple and easy. But now we have to think if China on the one hand, and of the new Pan-Islamic danger on the other. The 60 millions of Mahomedans in India, if inspired with Pan-Islamic aspirations, joined to the Islamic principalities and powers that stand both to our West and our northwest, may easily put an end to all our nationalist aspirations, almost at any moment, if the present British connection be severed.
"The four-hundred millions of the Chinese empire can, not only gain an easy footing in India, but once that footing is gained, they are the only people under the sun who can hold us down by sheer superior physical force. There is no other people who can do this. This awakening of China is, therefore, a very serious menace - in the present condition of our country, without an organized and trained army and a powerful navy of our own - to the maintenance of any isolated, though sovereign, independence of the Indian people. Even if we are able to gain it, we shall never be able to keep it, in the face of this Pan-Islamic and Pan-Mongolian menace. And when one considers these terrible possibilities of the world situation as it is slowly evolving before one's eyes, one is forced to recognize the absolute need of keeping up the British connection in the interest of Indian nationalism itself, for the very simple and sufficient reason that there is absolutely much greater chance of this nationalism fully realizing itself with rather than without this connection."
That politicians trained in this paranoid school of thought are finding it possible to come to terms with not only the Muslim world, but also China, is a tribute to their flexibility and adaptability. What has happened in the last year to bring about this metamorphosis in BJP leaders' mindset? Until last year they were pursuing a policy dictated by their political philosophy - wary of China and the Muslim world, they were simply kowtowing the West.
I do not presume to know the answer. But I can hazard a guess. What may have apprised them of the reality of the situation and expunged the influence of ideology is the world's reactions to the events in Gujarat. About 2,000 Muslims were killed and a 100,000 rendered homeless, the whole of central Gujarat cleansed of their presence, following the killing of 59 Hindus in a train compartment that was burned down, presumably by Muslims. From all accounts these anti-Muslim massacres were either organized, or at least encouraged by the BJP government of Gujarat.
This was the first large-scale mass murder in India in the age of electronic media and human rights activists. Word and images wend around and the world came to know of it. A strange thing happened. From the RSS point of view, neither China nor a single Muslim country protested. BJP politicians had to face a lot of flak. But all of it came from the West, either European governments or Western and Third World liberals trained in the West.
This may have shattered in the Hindutva mind the myth of a Muslim ummah, a world Muslim community. This myth had persisted in their mind against all evidence to the contrary presented to them by scholars from around the world. This may have also removed from their minds the fear of a clash between an alliance of Islamic and Chinese civilizations on the one hand ranged against the Hindu and Judeo-Christian civilizations on the other. If this is indeed what has happened, Gujarat may well have served a good purpose. Good can indeed come out of evil too.
<!--QuoteBegin-vishal+Nov 12 2003, 11:35 PM-->QUOTE(vishal @ Nov 12 2003, 11:35 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> parshuram,
i didn't got exactly what you meant.Kalki is also mentioned in Gita.Krishna said he will come back the day materialism king will rule world, to restore proper cultural order(vedic?). <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
HUH????? <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo--> I live by the Gita, and had read many times over.. Vishal, could you please specify where exactly the mention of KALKI is ? I Know of the lines "Sambhavami Yuge yuge".. That's pretty much it.. No further descriptions of a man on a white horse on the day of judgement..
Moslem Foot ball
Notice the Jews are very alert to any perceived slight from the Moslems.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Fellow tournament organizer Sabih Khan said he had worried about the names and had asked the teams to change them.
"It bothers me a little bit," said Khan, 18. But, he added: "They were just trying to be cool." <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This incident indicates the essence of the problem. Even for a seemingly modern and moderate American muslim like Khan to name teams with such names is considered cool. But this is exactly the kind of thing that has been happening in india for a millenium. A good example is Ghaziabad , a town in the suburbs of Delhi. Ghazi , a title that Akbar (the great) was very proud of attaining after he killed his first infidel, means that he is now recognized and honored as a killer of infidels. Ghaziabad indicates that it was once a town where the faithful killed kafirs in abundance. No self respecting country would let such a name survive. So we change Calcutta to Kolkatta ( a mere accentual difference)but let stand Ghaziabad, the town where infidels where once killed in great numbers, for fear that changing the name will rouse the passions of our Muslim brothers. A far better course of action would be that the IM is told in no uncertain terms that the name is deeply offensive to Hindus, and any Muslim should be ashamed of honoring such acts as large scale massacres of women and children.
Ah! A few jewels from Indians who have their hearts in the right place. An assortment of letters to the Editor in the Pioneer.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/editor.asp
Letters received on Monday, December 08, 2003
A question of reciprocity
On his deathbed, Prophet Muhammad was said to have declared, âThere shall be no two religions in Arabiaâ. Later, the Caliphs invaded country after country, conquering and converting their people. That, one may say, is the past. But today, in places like the UK, France, Bel-gium, Denmark, Germany and the US, many Muslims demand they be allowed their religious exclusivity in the public realm. In the UK, there were calls for declaring Islam one of the countryâs official religions. In Belgium, Muslims want Arabic to be made an official language. Given their stridency, is it any surprise even the US President recently hosted an iftar party? Why have these nations never asked countries like Saudi Arabia to allow Christians and Hindus the right to have their places of worship, and to practise and propagate their faith? Why do they not insist on reciprocity? If there can be âno two religionsâ in Saudi Arabia, why should there be two religions in, say, America? While non-insistence on this issue may be consistent with the professed aim of preserving pluralism, it also gives the impression of a cowardly acceptance of the Muslim claim that exclusivist Islam is superior to other faiths, and hence should be accorded special privileges. Civilised people everywhere root for socio-political pluralism. Thousands of years of frenetic efforts notwithstanding, neither Christianity nor Islam succeeded in exterminating other religions. The attempt to convert sows seeds of intolerance and strife. Confrontation and wars, whenever fanaticism takes root, have been the subjects of indoctrination of jihadis spread over many continents. A resolute war is needed against Islamic jihad, like there was against evangelising and insurrectionary communism.
P Sita Reddi
Uppal, Hyderabad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question of reciprocity
On his deathbed, Prophet Muhammad was said to have declared, âThere shall be no two religions in Arabiaâ. Later, the Caliphs invaded country after country, conquering and converting their people. That, one may say, is the past. But today, in places like the UK, France, Bel-gium, Denmark, Germany and the US, many Muslims demand they be allowed their religious exclusivity in the public realm. In the UK, there were calls for declaring Islam one of the countryâs official religions. In Belgium, Muslims want Arabic to be made an official language. Given their stridency, is it any surprise even the US President recently hosted an iftar party? Why have these nations never asked countries like Saudi Arabia to allow Christians and Hindus the right to have their places of worship, and to practise and propagate their faith? Why do they not insist on reciprocity? If there can be âno two religionsâ in Saudi Arabia, why should there be two religions in, say, America? While non-insistence on this issue may be consistent with the professed aim of preserving pluralism, it also gives the impression of a cowardly acceptance of the Muslim claim that exclusivist Islam is superior to other faiths, and hence should be accorded special privileges. Civilised people everywhere root for socio-political pluralism. Thousands of years of frenetic efforts notwithstanding, neither Christianity nor Islam succeeded in exterminating other religions. The attempt to convert sows seeds of intolerance and strife. Confrontation and wars, whenever fanaticism takes root, have been the subjects of indoctrination of jihadis spread over many continents. A resolute war is needed against Islamic jihad, like there was against evangelising and insurrectionary communism.
P Sita Reddi
Uppal, Hyderabad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umbilical discord
SirâI disagree with what Mr G Has-nain Kaif says in his letter, âDharmic necessityâ (Nov 11). That Indian secularism is no more than minority appeasement is widely recognised. Had it been otherwise, the state would have maintained equidistance from all religions. The political systemâs vigour and energy would have been directed towards development and the education of the masses. The Constitution, which upholds equality, would have been respected. Power-thirsty politicians would not have pursued the Muslim votebank. So-called secular intellectuals would not have gloried in our past slavery under Muslim rule, nor forgotten what Hindus suffered on account of it. If India is prey to social divisiveness, it is due to those championing divisive caste, religious and linguistic identities. Most Indian Muslims exacerbate the problem, by clinging to the Arab associations ofârather than Indianising âtheir faith. For them, Islam is above nation. In the name of false âpluralityâ, the countryâs unity and integrity is being threatened. The opposition to the Uniform Civil Code makes this plain. Muslim intellectuals and pseudo-secular Hindus denigrate sanatan dharma and Arya samaj as âidol worshipâ. This, despite the fact sanatan dharma is based on Vedic and Aryan sanskriti, according to which divinities are simply manifestations of the one indivisible Godhead. Idols were only created to facilitate mental and spiritual concentration, the unwavering focus of the mind on a symbol of the ultimate God. Idol worship is, therefore, no more than the beginning of the unalloyed worship of God. When communion with God is fully attained, one does not need idols. Hinduism is perhaps the only religion that does not gather its strength from criticism of other belief systems. Hindus believe there is one eternal law that unites all mankindâsarva dharma sambhav. Their social customs have less to do with religious strictures than this cultural heritage, unlike those of Muslims which flow from Quranic injunctionsâthe reason they and not Hindus oppose the UCC. This is also why, for Hindus, nationalism is the only religion in the public sphere. Finally, the âsecularistsâ should ask themselves why tolerance should be a virtue only demanded of Hindus. More, they should ask why Muslims are not more forthcoming on the issue of national integrity, and why they do not whole-heartedly condemn those who use terrorism to destabilise nations. India has been a target of attack for so long that Hindus cannot help but think of sarva dharma bachava, in place of sarva dharma sambhav.
KK Gupta
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No thanks giving?
SirâIt was refreshing to see a beaming US President George W Bush sporting an army jacket and holding a trayload of eatables during his surprise participation in a Thanksgiving dinner with US troops in Baghdad. I am referring to the photograph with the news report, âDaring trip indeed, but how useful?â (Nov 29). Heads of State and Government and First Ladies of many nations frequently pay morale-boosting visits to troops stationed in far-flung places or engaged in life-threatening operations. We in India still miss out on this inspiring tradition. Apart from strictly formal homageâ read lip serviceâpaid to our jawans on ceremonial occasions, our rulers have done precious little to give defence personnel due respect. Even the connotation of the word âjawanâ has undergone change, its true meaning diluted, over the years. It is indiscriminately used these days to refer to anyone ranging from a homeguard to a policeman, from a liveried gateman regulating entry to an army combatant in full battle gear, ready to take on terrorists from across the border. Why are we so apathetic and diffident about interacting with and recognising the contribution made by the jawans of the armed forces? Are they not, after all, the ultimate defenders of the countryâs sovereignty, integrity, honour and identity?
SC Kapoor
Jal Vayu Vihar, Noida
<b>Islam and the West: The Ocean and the Volcano - Part I </b>
By Professor Nazeer Ahmed
http://www.pakistanlink.com/Opinion/2003...19/05.html
Executive Director
American Institute of Islamic History and Culture
If a student of history were to search for an analogy to illustrate the interactions between the West and the Islamic world in the twentieth century, that of the Ocean and the Volcano would be an appropriate one. While the convulsions within the Islamic world have largely been a function of its own internal dialectic, the interference from the West in this dialectic has played a major role in them. It is as if the Islamic world, which has been submerged in the ocean of Western dominance, is seeking to find its place in the sun, and from time to time, an island emerges here and there. But as soon as the first rock sticks its head out, the ocean strikes it with unrelenting fury until it is broken into pieces and is submerged again.
The Western ocean has subsumed the creative energies of the Islamic world for more than a century. As a result, the sheer power of pent up frustrations in the Islamic world sputters like intermittent volcanoes, cleaving the sea apart. But each time it happens, the sea closes in on the volcano, submerging the effulgent lava once again. And the process repeats. In this essay, we will take a brief historical view of this process.
Islam and the West have met for fourteen hundred years, on occasion in the battlefield, but for long periods in trade, commerce, social and technological interchange. As we scan these centuries, two periods emerge in which the interactions between the West and the world of Islam were similar to those in the last hundred years. The first was the period between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries in Spain and the Maghreb. Its outcome was not obvious until the Battle of Al Qasr al Kabir (1578) and the sinking of the Spanish Armada off the coast of England (1588). <span style='color:red'>The second period was eighteenth century India, whose outcome was decided at the Battle of Plassey (1757) and the Battle of Srirangapatam (1799). Both of these periods offer useful lessons which would be of benefit for an understanding of the contemporary Muslim world. </span>
With the crushing defeat of the Al Muhadith at the Battle of Las Novas de Tolosa (1212), power rapidly slipped from the Muslims in the Spanish Peninsula. The combined armies of Castile, Aragon and Portugal overran much of Spain. Cordoba, that old capital of the Spanish Umayyad Caliphate, fell in 1236. Seville was overrun in 1248. Granada managed to hang on to the hills of El Pujarra as a vassal state of Castile. The Al Muhadith Empire in the Maghreb disintegrated into three competing principalities, the Merinides (modern Morocco), the Zayyanids (modern Algeria) and the Ifriqiya (modern Tunisia). Mutual rivalry between these three kingdoms and the political fragmentation that followed the defeat weakened the Maghreb. There emerged seven centers of power in the region: Castile, Aragon, Portugal, Granada, Merinide, Zayyanid and Ifriqiya. The Muslim emirs and the Christian barons often sided with one another in a free for all that lasted two hundred years. Technological development in the seven kingdoms was about the same and no single kingdom could totally dominate the others.
The military-political balance changed with the emergence of the Ottomans in the Eastern Mediterranean. When Constantinople (modern Istanbul) fell to Sultan Mehmet in 1453, the Pope in Rome called for a new Crusade. Unable to stop the advance of the Turks in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Christian powers turned their attention to the Maghreb. The continued weakness of the Maghrebi Muslim kingdoms and the simultaneous naval ascendancy of Spain and Portugal was an open invitation for Europe to intervene in the Maghreb. The Christian powers carved out Muslim territories to attack, conquer and subjugate. Granada fell, despite a valiant resistance, in 1492. For a while it seemed that North Africa would follow suit. The Portuguese captured al Qasr in 1458 and followed it up with the capture of Arzila and Tangiers (1471). Mers el Kabir fell to Spain in 1505. The Spaniards followed up this conquest with the capture and destruction of Oran (1509) and Tripoli (1511). By the time Sulaiman the Magnificent ascended the Ottoman throne in Istanbul (1526), all of the North African coast up to Egypt was in the hands of Spain, while the Atlantic Coast of Morocco was controlled by Portugal.
The Christian tide was not contained until the Ottomans made their thrust into North Africa. In 1571, the Spaniards were driven out of Tripoli. Enraged at this defeat, the Iberians resolved at the outright conquest of the Maghreb. King Sebastian of Portugal landed on the coast of Morocco in 1578 with the intent of conquering the Merinide kingdom. Morocco was at that time in the midst of a Sufi revival under Jazuliya Shaikhs. At the battle of Al Qasr al Kabir (1578), Ahmed al Mansur of Morocco, aided by the Jazuliya Sufis, defeated and destroyed the Portuguese army. Sebastian was killed and all of his noblemen were taken prisoner. Portugal was so weakened by this defeat that it became a colony of Spain and remained so until 1541.
Meanwhile, unrelated to developments in Muslim West Africa, frictions between Spain and England arising from English piracy off the coast of Africa and Church disputes led to the ill-fated attempt by Spain to invade and occupy England. In 1588 the Spanish armada was caught off the coast of England and was sunk. Although she made a feeble second attempt at an invasion of England ten years later, Spain never recovered from this catastrophe. Naval primacy passed from the Iberian Peninsula to Northern Europe. The battle of Al Qasr al Kabir (1578), and the battle for England (1588) are major pivots around which global history has revolved.
The attempted intervention by the Iberians into Muslim Maghreb was motivated primarily by religious zeal. It was part of the Crusades which raged all around the Mediterranean well into the seventeenth century. The Maghreb survived this first thrust because there was more or less technological parity between the adversaries and the religious zeal of the Jazuliya Shaikhs in the Maghreb was no less ardent than that of the Christian Iberians. So, after the fall of Granada (1492), a political-military balance was reestablished, which lasted well into the nineteenth century.
But the wheels of fortune turned in favor of Europe in the succeeding centuries. By the eighteenth century, Europe was far ahead of the rest of the world in naval technology and opportunities for political intervention were plentiful in a world in turmoil. This time, the motivation was loot and profit and it was the British who spearheaded this thrust. Their first victim was the large and prosperous subcontinent of India.
After the death of the Great Mogul Aurangzeb (1707), India imploded politically. Internal corruption, incompetent rulers and excessive religious zeal all played their part. India was like a ripe old banyan tree rotten from the inside. The provincial governors of the sprawling empire asserted their autonomy. Bengal, Hyderabad, Gujrat, Afghanistan and Sindh flexed their own muscles. The Marathas carved up a large state of their own in Western and Central India. In the midst of this chaos, Nadir Shah of Persia raided Delhi (1739) and looted the city. Much as the political disintegration of the Maghreb had invited intervention from Christian Andalusian powers in earlier centuries, eighteenth century India invited intervention from the British and the French. After an initial tussle, the French bowed out leaving the field clear to the British.
The fateful Battle of Plassey (1758) was one of the major events in global history. The internal rot in the Muslim body politic showed itself on the battlefield and the commander in chief, Mir Jafar of the Nawab of Bengal went over to the British in the thick of battle. No more than a handful of British soldiers were now masters of a vast and rich slice of the subcontinent. What followed was systematic looting of Northern India. Billions of dollars were shipped out to London leaving what was once the most prosperous region in Asia poor and destitute. Famine set in and thousands perished. The Mayan gold that was once looted from the New World and had found its way to Europe on Spanish ships, and from there found its way to India via the spice trade, now headed back to Europe as war booty into the coffers of a ruthless East India Company. So huge was the haul that it financed the Industrial Revolution in England, and by the turn of the eighteenth century, European technology had far surpassed that in other parts of the world. So, when a test of arms came and India finally offered resistance in the person of Tippu Sultan, it was too late. Tippu fell in the Battle of Srirangapatam (1799) and India was firmly in the hands of the British.
The driving force behind British - and European - policies in the nineteenth century was imperialism. With the resources of the vast Indian subcontinent at their command, the British succeeded in colonizing much of Asia and Africa. The Muslim littoral states of the Indian Ocean, stretching in an arc from Mombasa in Africa to Malacca in Malaysia, were the primary losers. After the Napoleonic wars, which ended in 1812, the major European powers (England, France, Russia) reached a tacit understanding that it was more advantageous to work together in their common goal of colonization than in fighting one another. Accordingly, the Russian empire expanded, while the French and the Dutch empires emerged on the coattails of the British Empire, and Afro-Asia was on its knees.
The nineteenth century was one of unbridled exploitation of the resources of the world by the European powers. Nations that offered resistance were subjugated by the gun or by duplicity. Indonesia, Malaysia, Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa fell one after the other. Even mighty China suffered the humiliation of defeat in the Opium Wars and was forced to sign a series of capitulatory agreements. The Ottoman Empire stood out as a solitary island in a sea of Western imperialism, but it too was chiseled up, bit by bit, by Russia, France and Great Britain. The (western) ocean had triumphed; the islands had disappeared. (To be continued next week)
Muslims and the Historic U-Turns
By Mohammad A Chaudhry
Pittsburg, CA
Nations make adjustments in their approach to the problems that confront them, and ultimately wiggle out of them and thrive. Rigid stands taken when flexibility and the use of discretion should be the choice, unfailingly destroy countries, no matter how just their cause be and how laudable their morale. Like it or not, we live in a self-centered and utilitarian world in which a timely change is the whole thing.
The Sikhs are brave people. In the 18th Century, they defeated the British in the Punjab in their first skirmish. But then in the next bout, the British by dint of their use of gunpowder and better military training and deployment succeeded in turning red the waters of the Bias River with the Sikh blood. The defeat as well as the humiliation was total. Otherwise known for their uncanny stubbornness, the Sikhs learnt early on that riding on the bare backs of horses and flourishing karpans in the air was no match to the military might of the British, and they made an unpleasant, but wise and timely adjustment. They vowed not to the fight the British, but be a part of them and fleece them. Their aim remained the same, only the tactics changed. History tells us that they stuck to the British like a tic or a leach and thrived in the subsequent years on their blood. The Sikhs were the first to be inducted in the British Army, became a very important component of it with the exclusive permission to wear their own head-gear and grow beards too. In the war of Independence of 1857, it were the Sikhs who settled their grievances against the Muslims by riding on the shoulders of the British.
Panday could have been the first foot soldier to fire a shot at the British to start the war of Independence of India in 1857, but his fellow- religion Hindus were not the last to see it end that way. It were the Muslims who bore the main brunt. The Hindus were quick to make the timely U-Turn after the failure of this Revolt. Muslims were the worst to suffer because they were made to believe by their Ulemas that a change in stand meant endangerment to Islam. The Hindus like the Sikhs adjusted themselves, by resolving not to oppose the British, but to go along with them and be their biggest suckers (in the literal sense). And they did so. Sunder Nath, otherwise known as Surrender Not, in India was the first Indian to pass the Indian Civil Service Examination. In subsequent years, the Hindus were the first to learn Modern Languages and sciences, especially English, were the first to occupy the menial as well as the highest offices. The Muslims stayed entangled in their elephant-big egos, remained entangled in the Deobandi and Bareli schools of thought, and basked nostalgically in the glory that was not there. For them making an adjustment in approach amounted to abandoning their religion, and Mullahs made sure that it did not happen even by accident. Study of English language and literature became a sinful act. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan in the 19th Century and Quaid-i-Azam during the struggle for Independence came to be dubbed as Kafirs. Their sin being that they were making efforts to awaken the Muslims to the ground realities that would tell even a blind man that the Muslims were out of step with the pace of time, and that the only way to get out of this decadence was to align oneself with the pace of the time.
In the recent past, the Germans in Europe and the Japanese in Asia suffered the worst defeats, and tasted the most demeaning defeats. We the Muslims cannot say that the Germans were not brave soldiers or that the Japanese did not have any sense of honor. For them to commit suicide when confronted with humiliation used to be an act of chivalry. Both the nations made U-Turns. The Germans and the Japanese, both rose from the debris and trash they were reduced to, and emerged as nations that are to be reckoned with. Knowledge and research, to which the Muslims said good-bye in the 12th century of Ibn Rushd, became the key words for them. The tactics to come out of the malaise were, to leave the past, and to look to the future, and to change in order to get the best out of the worst. They learnt to use the destroyerâs resources in order to reconstruct themselves. Today the 4,089 billion dollars GDP of Japan is a befitting reply to the United Statesâ$7,903 billions. Both countries forgot the bombs dropped on them. Today both stand strong and firm. Today, the Germans are in a position to take an independent stand on the issue of pre-emptive strikes at countries like Iraq by opposing America, and Japan is an economic power that America is proud to have as a friend. Both nations stand redeemed.
The Vietnamese children still play with the skulls of their elders who perished in the war, but are today Americaâs closest friends. They are right on target as they are busy in strengthening their nation by fostering good business relations with America. India offers another example. Leaping out of the lap of Russia, the Indians of yesterday have strategically perched themselves on the shoulders of America, and are its best partners. Within a few years, its foreign reserves have risen from 18 billion to more than 82 billion. Pakistanâs policy in Kashmir and the 9/11 incident became a blessing in disguise for India, and India did not lose a moment to grasp the opportunity. We are still busy in eulogizing the Talibaan and are fighting those who refuse to take them as role models of Islam. Some of their grand virtues being that they sat on the mat and ate with bare fingers, and that they established peace because they transformed public hanging into a sight-seeing event.
Is it in our psyche, culture or nature to shun compromises, and to keep abhorring adjustments when they become so inevitable? Certainly it is not in the religion that we follow. May be perhaps it is a part of our nature to break rather than to bend. We do not pay attention to the spirit of Hudaibiya as much as we do to becoming a Kharjite. If the spirit of tolerance, forgiveness and adjustment had stayed with us, today we would not be mourning the martyrdom of Hazrat Usman, Hazrat Ali and of Hazrat Hussain.
Pakistan today is in a quagmire of political and sectarian turmoil. Religious people are exploiting the religion for their own designs. Abu Lahb opposed the Prophet, not because he did not like the message the Holy Prophet was preaching. He did so because as a banker and money lender, the new message of Islam was hitting at the very root of his well-being. Abu Jehl opposed the Holy Prophet, not because he did not see the truth in his message; he was constrained to do so because as a politician, it affected his chances of remaining the Vadera of the town. The politicians see no chances of attaining power as long as Musharraf is there; and the religious leaders see themselves being pushed again to their erstwhile Hujras as the resources that facilitated their movements in Pajeros, are now getting dried up. Islam as a religion is under no danger. It is and has been a religion of peace and common sense. It is the vested interests of pseudo leaders that are at stake.
The word, Jihad, translated by the religious leaders as Holy War, and as is understood by the West, and translated by their Media as Holy War, has never been used in such meanings since the 11th Century, till the later half of the 20th Century when it had to be polished and reused with American blessings in Afghanistan. The concept of a Holy War was coined by Europe during the Crusades when a justification had to be found in religion to war against Muslims. Muslims and a major majority of them are not warmongers. Muslimsâ problem in each Muslim country has been and still is the lack of sincere leadership. Selfishness, infinite greed, corruption, and the most callous desire to stay in power, by hook or by crook, is what is inhibiting them to see the urgency that is making a clarion call to move away from the path of the falling boulders. Discretion and common sense work better when suicidal valor appears to be failing.
Islam does not demand unreasoned belief, it invites intelligent faith, growing from observation, reflection and contemplation. The clerics want the Muslims to be blind followers. Musharrafâs arrival was wrong but his approach under the circumstances to get Pakistan out of the imminent turmoil is correct. The U-Turn he has made with regard to the Afghanistan By Mohammad A Chaudhry
Pittsburg, CA
Nations make adjustments in their approach to the problems that confront them, and ultimately wiggle out of them and thrive. Rigid stands taken when flexibility and the use of discretion should be the choice, unfailingly destroy countries, no matter how just their cause be and how laudable their morale. Like it or not, we live in a self-centered and utilitarian world in which a timely change is the whole thing.
The Sikhs are brave people. In the 18th Century, they defeated the British in the Punjab in their first skirmish. But then in the next bout, the British by dint of their use of gunpowder and better military training and deployment succeeded in turning red the waters of the Bias River with the Sikh blood. The defeat as well as the humiliation was total. Otherwise known for their uncanny stubbornness, the Sikhs learnt early on that riding on the bare backs of horses and flourishing karpans in the air was no match to the military might of the British, and they made an unpleasant, but wise and timely adjustment. They vowed not to the fight the British, but be a part of them and fleece them. Their aim remained the same, only the tactics changed. History tells us that they stuck to the British like a tic or a leach and thrived in the subsequent years on their blood. The Sikhs were the first to be inducted in the British Army, became a very important component of it with the exclusive permission to wear their own head-gear and grow beards too. In the war of Independence of 1857, it were the Sikhs who settled their grievances against the Muslims by riding on the shoulders of the British.
Panday could have been the first foot soldier to fire a shot at the British to start the war of Independence of India in 1857, but his fellow- religion Hindus were not the last to see it end that way. It were the Muslims who bore the main brunt. The Hindus were quick to make the timely U-Turn after the failure of this Revolt. Muslims were the worst to suffer because they were made to believe by their Ulemas that a change in stand meant endangerment to Islam. The Hindus like the Sikhs adjusted themselves, by resolving not to oppose the British, but to go along with them and be their biggest suckers (in the literal sense). And they did so. Sunder Nath, otherwise known as Surrender Not, in India was the first Indian to pass the Indian Civil Service Examination. In subsequent years, the Hindus were the first to learn Modern Languages and sciences, especially English, were the first to occupy the menial as well as the highest offices. The Muslims stayed entangled in their elephant-big egos, remained entangled in the Deobandi and Bareli schools of thought, and basked nostalgically in the glory that was not there. For them making an adjustment in approach amounted to abandoning their religion, and Mullahs made sure that it did not happen even by accident. Study of English language and literature became a sinful act. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan in the 19th Century and Quaid-i-Azam during the struggle for Independence came to be dubbed as Kafirs. Their sin being that they were making efforts to awaken the Muslims to the ground realities that would tell even a blind man that the Muslims were out of step with the pace of time, and that the only way to get out of this decadence was to align oneself with the pace of the time.
In the recent past, the Germans in Europe and the Japanese in Asia suffered the worst defeats, and tasted the most demeaning defeats. We the Muslims cannot say that the Germans were not brave soldiers or that the Japanese did not have any sense of honor. For them to commit suicide when confronted with humiliation used to be an act of chivalry. Both the nations made U-Turns. The Germans and the Japanese, both rose from the debris and trash they were reduced to, and emerged as nations that are to be reckoned with. Knowledge and research, to which the Muslims said good-bye in the 12th century of Ibn Rushd, became the key words for them. The tactics to come out of the malaise were, to leave the past, and to look to the future, and to change in order to get the best out of the worst. They learnt to use the destroyerâs resources in order to reconstruct themselves. Today the 4,089 billion dollars GDP of Japan is a befitting reply to the United Statesâ$7,903 billions. Both countries forgot the bombs dropped on them. Today both stand strong and firm. Today, the Germans are in a position to take an independent stand on the issue of pre-emptive strikes at countries like Iraq by opposing America, and Japan is an economic power that America is proud to have as a friend. Both nations stand redeemed.
The Vietnamese children still play with the skulls of their elders who perished in the war, but are today Americaâs closest friends. They are right on target as they are busy in strengthening their nation by fostering good business relations with America. India offers another example. Leaping out of the lap of Russia, the Indians of yesterday have strategically perched themselves on the shoulders of America, and are its best partners. Within a few years, its foreign reserves have risen from 18 billion to more than 82 billion. Pakistanâs policy in Kashmir and the 9/11 incident became a blessing in disguise for India, and India did not lose a moment to grasp the opportunity. We are still busy in eulogizing the Talibaan and are fighting those who refuse to take them as role models of Islam. Some of their grand virtues being that they sat on the mat and ate with bare fingers, and that they established peace because they transformed public hanging into a sight-seeing event.
Is it in our psyche, culture or nature to shun compromises, and to keep abhorring adjustments when they become so inevitable? Certainly it is not in the religion that we follow. May be perhaps it is a part of our nature to break rather than to bend. We do not pay attention to the spirit of Hudaibiya as much as we do to becoming a Kharjite. If the spirit of tolerance, forgiveness and adjustment had stayed with us, today we would not be mourning the martyrdom of Hazrat Usman, Hazrat Ali and of Hazrat Hussain.
Pakistan today is in a quagmire of political and sectarian turmoil. Religious people are exploiting the religion for their own designs. Abu Lahb opposed the Prophet, not because he did not like the message the Holy Prophet was preaching. He did so because as a banker and money lender, the new message of Islam was hitting at the very root of his well-being. Abu Jehl opposed the Holy Prophet, not because he did not see the truth in his message; he was constrained to do so because as a politician, it affected his chances of remaining the Vadera of the town. The politicians see no chances of attaining power as long as Musharraf is there; and the religious leaders see themselves being pushed again to their erstwhile Hujras as the resources that facilitated their movements in Pajeros, are now getting dried up. Islam as a religion is under no danger. It is and has been a religion of peace and common sense. It is the vested interests of pseudo leaders that are at stake.
The word, Jihad, translated by the religious leaders as Holy War, and as is understood by the West, and translated by their Media as Holy War, has never been used in such meanings since the 11th Century, till the later half of the 20th Century when it had to be polished and reused with American blessings in Afghanistan. The concept of a Holy War was coined by Europe during the Crusades when a justification had to be found in religion to war against Muslims. Muslims and a major majority of them are not warmongers. Muslimsâ problem in each Muslim country has been and still is the lack of sincere leadership. Selfishness, infinite greed, corruption, and the most callous desire to stay in power, by hook or by crook, is what is inhibiting them to see the urgency that is making a clarion call to move away from the path of the falling boulders. Discretion and common sense work better when suicidal valor appears to be failing.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Islam does not demand unreasoned belief, it invites intelligent faith, growing from observation, reflection and contemplation. The clerics want the Muslims to be blind followers. Musharrafâs arrival was wrong but his approach under the circumstances to get Pakistan out of the imminent turmoil is correct. The U-Turn he has made with regard to the Afghanistan.</span>http://www.pakistanlink.com/Opinion/2003/Dec03/05/02.html
|
