« I am number one! | Main | Last Call »

A good reason why religion is not worth the bloodshed— its dogmatic, divisive, and exclusive.

:mad:

If you were just being flippant then its not worth a bother. However if you were serious, I’d like you to know what you understand about the Vedanta philosophy which is the essence of Hinduism. I’d also like you to point out one tenet found in that philosophy that you find dogmatic.

I agree with Niraj 100%. Religion is the root of a lot of evil.
I think the Indian Muslims need assimilation more than anything else. The Muslim masses have more or less assimilated with the masses. Its a very small elite class of Muslims living in North India who continue to see Hindus as Idolators and are refusing to assimilate. They see themselves as descendents of Persians or Central Asians. In this class of people theres also a very strong racial element. They see Hindus as a different race are foolishly enough almost proud of their foreign ancestry e.g Imam of Jama Masjid whos a Bukhari. (The same people in Pakistan completely control Pakistan and all army chiefs except for Musharraf have come from this ‘class’. These people are unfortunately setting the agenda for all Muslims in India. Actually its this explicit racism of the Pakistani ruling elites that led to the Bangla War. They considered Bangla Muslims to be inferior because Banglas were darker and shorter.
Theres a very good report on that by Nooruddin in Pakistan on the racial element and the Bangla war.

People group amongst themselves and follow the mob mentality.

Sometimes, a messiah comes leaves behind a mess. That is good reason for the mob to indulge.

Other times, a few individuals assume intellect over the rest of humanity and write down something in the name of Avaita Vedanta…..wats worse, a million years later people still buy the assumed intellect.

When none of these are issues, we will find new ones to fight.

I wish I could be as smooth and glib as our Mr Dilip D’Souza, so I could get famous (or notorious, depending on your pov ;) writing a regular column for Rediff.

Working his logic backwards, desperate to equate communal riots in Gujarat with the massacre in Baslan, he writes

After meeting these kids, I too thought that their attackers had “lost any claim to morals or causes.”

I’ll address that point separately, whether anybody is ascribing any causes or morals to these attackers other than revenge and bloodlust; and whether such causes and morals are to be ascribed to all rioting parties or only to particular parties; and in the event that they are to be ascribed to all parties, what are the implications — what cause will have to be seen to have been delegitimized, for instance, when a bunch of people attack people of another community because the former’s prophet has allegedly been insulted by a journalist belonging to the latter? Has the prophet himself been delegitimized? Ooops .. err .. I’m already into that discussion that I said I’d pursue as the conversation evolves. So here I stop.

But I am on another point at this moment. Reading the above, one would presume that Mr D’Souza’s fine principle is to deny any claims to causes made by terrorists. But that didn’t prevent him from writing, right after terrorists have attempted in Decmeber 2001 to attack our parliament and kill our leadership — he makes it abundantly clear that our evil leadership had it coming and even deserved it — thusly:

Let’s at least have the courage, sense and self-confidence to recognise why these men — in NYC or in Delhi — did what they did. They had serious grievances against the two countries, against the policies they have pursued.

Read that again, please. You need to have courage, nothing less, and top it with a serving of self-confidence to boot, to recognize that killers of WTC (no kids killed among the 3000?) had “grievances”, and therfore, naturally, “causes”.

Am I the only person that sees a disconnect as wide and deep as the Grand Canyon between various utterances of Mr D’Souza? Does he have an argument for every seaon, the one made in the monsoons superceding the one advanced in summer?

Wondering,
Raghu Reddy

Shanti,

Thanks for your response. Some thoughts in return:

> I agree it is easy to get defensive when fellow
> Hindus are accused of fanaticism.

Why? I’ve never understood this. Why should you feel defensive about some maniacs who happen to be Hindu? Are you responsible for them, any more than I am? Or put it this way, if you are responsible, am I not as well?

> the media frenzy that is quick to condemn any
> violence by Hindus while ignoring the Muslim
> provocation.

Two aspects here, let me address them in turn.

One, Which media frenzy? This is one of those urban legends that the likes of Advani and Thackeray have put out. Take just Godhra. On the DAY it happened, within hours, there were angry protests that the media was “ignoring” Godhra, that nobody had “condemned” it “enough”, on and on. I was actually on a train that day and night, returned home to find my Inbox filled with love-notes from dear readers damning me for not condemning Godhra enough. Yet some of the first letters and articles I saw were about the terror at Godhra. Of course the scale and immediacy of the subsequent violence, and the need to report that, meant the coverage of Godhra became a smaller part of the news. This can hardly be taken to mean that Godhra was “ignored”. Yet that’s been repeated so often that it’s become a sort of accepted wisdom.

Two, why say “Muslim provocation”? This is another trap that the likes of Advani and gang have led us into, this subtle implication that it was ALL Muslims who were responsible for Godhra. Some maniacs committed a horrible crime. They happen to be Muslim. Why is that termed a “Muslim provocation”? Did all Muslims in the country indulge in this “provocation”? After all, when upper caste thugs murder lower caste villagers in Bihar, let’s say, do I conclude that there’s been a “Hindu provocation”? Or even that there’s been a “Brahmin provocation”? Do I look askance at my wife, a (nominal) Brahmin?

And besides, why this “provocation” argument? Again, when upper caste thugs murder lower castes in Bihar, do lower castes around the country conclude that there has been a “provocation” and rush around murdering all the Brahmins they can find?

Godhra should be seen for what it was: a horrible atrocity by guys who must be punished. But that’s it. To say that there’s been a “Muslim provocation” and therefore slaughter hundreds of other Muslims who were nowhere near Godhra and had nothing to do with it is an absurd monstrosity.

And it is just as absurd that you should feel defensive about the people who slaughtered those innocent Muslims, just because they happen to be Hindu. You should want them punished, period. There’s never a reason to feel defensive about criminals.

> At least some horror stories like the one
> Arundhati Roy had made up about the so-called
> murder of a Muslim politician’s family -
> when in fact nothing like that had happened

I have no wish or reason to defend Arundhati Roy, but let’s get some things straight. It was no “so-called murder”. The politician, Ehsan Jafri, was pulled out of his house on Feb 28, stripped, paraded naked, fingers were chopped off, hands and feet chopped off, dragged with a “fork-like instrument at his throat” before being burned. Three of his brothers and two nephews were also killed, along with at least 30 more who lived in that building (Gulberg Society). In an account Arundhati Roy wrote, she mentioned that Jafri’s daughter(s? can’t remember) were also killed. That’s false. But how does that change the reality, that Jafri and 5 of his family and 30 others were killed there? How does that allow someone as thoughtful as you to say “in fact, nothing like that had happened”?

If tomorrow someone wrote an article saying that 75 people died in Godhra, and I read that and say to myself “that’s not true, only 60 died” (which is the case), would it be acceptable for me to get on my blog and say “That account by XYZ is false; in fact, nothing like Godhra happened”?

> If someone I like and admire is accused of
> something bad, I am going to try to look for
> loopholes in the argument. I am not going to
> admit they might have been wrong, especially
> when I already believe the world is against me.

I’m lost here. Who is the person you like and admire? And why do you believe the world is against you? But assuming you’ll explain this to me: if someone you admire has committed a ghastly crime, why should it be hard to admit they were wrong? I admired Indira Gandhi (admittedly, I was still a teenager then) till the moment she declared the Emergency and showed us just how craven she was. Why should I try to “look for loopholes in the argument”? She was a disaster for my country and I have no problems admitting that. Similarly, I admired Vajpayee, from his time in Morarji’s Janata government after the Emergency. But after ‘92, he showed me just how craven he was too. Another disaster for my country.

> an already frightened and distrustful Hindu
> community

Just who is this “frightened and distrustful Hindu community”? This is another urban legend spread by the likes of Advani — that all Hindus are frightened and have terribly scarred “psyches”. Really? But how is it that I don’t see this fright in the Hindus around me? My mother is Hindu. My two siblings and I have all married Hindus, whose families I know well. I have dozens of close Hindu friends. None of all these Hindus are “frightened and distrustful.” Have I just been extraordinarily lucky in locating and developing relationships with the only non-frightened Hindus in the country?

In fact, all of them are contemptuous of this weak vision that the likes of Advani peddle: this idea that all Hindus must feel frightened. In effect, the Advanis are saying: you’re not a real Hindu unless you feel frightened and believe the world is against you. Again, why would someone as thoughtful as you subscribe to such piffle?

Here’s some lines I once wrote about one of those Hindus around me. This is a “lady in whose house I have spent the last several Ganesh Chaturtis. Every time, I feel a tingling in my spine as I watch her and her jaunty elephant-headed idol. It’s from her quiet yet clear-eyed devotion, from her deep understanding of the spirit of her culture and faith, that I know she gets her confidence, compassion, strength and humanity. That’s why I know — without her having to write it at the bottom of letters, or shout it from her balcony, or feel it after a politician wins, or see only ogres across religious lines — that she is proud to belong to a great and wise tradition. Proud to be Hindu.”

Thank you for listening.

I think the BJP and its Hinduvta brigade have been able to convince the Hindu masses in India that they need some form of muscular Hinduism to avenge the past foreign occupations. Just like Pakistan destroyed itself under Zia’s plan of Islamisation (it led to the Taliban and Kashmiri Terrorists) India seems to be headed the same way. I am hoping that better sense will prevail.

Dilip, you say I should not feel responsible for some maniacs who happened to be Hindu - but when every mention of Gujarat also mentions Hindu “fascism” - not the fascism of a few people who claim to speak for Hindus, you are lumping us all together in exactly the same way I did when I mentioned Muslim provocation.

I am just explaining things the way they appear to someone who wants to take the easy way out. I never said I supported it or thought it was the right thing to do. Blaming others is easy - introspection is hard.

Hindus are frighetened - not all, but many. If you were to go to the Charminar area in Hyderabad about 10-15 years ago, you would spend all your time there looking around to make sure you are not upsetting any of the Muslims there, because of the horror stories you heard about religious rioting. BJP fed on the fears - armed a few Hindus and put up a fight with the Majlis thugs. They became heroes to the communit, all because the Congress government in power refused to rein the Muslim thugs in.

What I speak of is what I experienced in India when I was there and what I hear from people there now.

why in the holy hell are comments longer than the original post?/??

Dilip/AM - take a step back and look at your comments as just that - comments - and tell me if you will ever read em again (given a million $)

Unfortunately, Mr. D’Souza’s piece, while well-thought out and well-written, is not all that practical. However much we may desire that Indians see beyond religious, caste, and linguistic identities – those identities serve a valuable purpose. In India: A Million Mutinies Now, V.S. Naipaul argued that the reason Indians are so quick to distinguish among themselves is that the term “Indian” is simply too broad and too general to be practical for day to day existence. India is not an ethnically homogenous country like Japan or Denmark, where nationalism fuses nicely with ethnic group loyalty. Furthermore, India’s poverty makes it important that people find value in something else. In a country that lacks basic necessities for all, smaller groups can organize to provide for their members. Again, those nations that are ethnically homogenous often have the most generous social welfare benefits, since those benefits go to “people who look like us”. In nations such as France, Italy, and Germany – which have fast growing Muslim underclass – there is now serious debate on how extensive the social welfare net should be.

Alexis D’Tocqueville noted that what made democracy work in America is that Americans saw many differences among themselves, and participated in local associations that reflected their makeup. Because people had multiple loyalties, this prevented the “tyranny of the majority” that has bedeviled so many aspiring democratic nations, and which is now on display in Bangladesh. The Hindu population was around 15% at the time of Bangladeshi independence, but that number is dwindling annually, as many migrate to Calcutta or Queens, NY.

Hindus do not have to be fearful of Muslims to express genuine concern over the state of Indian Muslims. Muslims have a higher rate of illiteracy and larger family sizes than their Hindu neighbors. Is it because of genetic inferiority? No, but it has become a culture that mostly rejects the opportunities of the modern age. Young Muslim girls lag behind Hindu girls in finishing school. Yet, India boats a number of prominent Indian Muslim businessmen such as Azim Premji of Wipro, Yusuf Hamad of Cipla, Farooq Kothwari of Ethan Allen. Many of India’s prominent actors, musicians, and artists are Muslim. So the opportunity is there, but as Fareed Zakaria noted, the colorful and vibrant Islam of his youth has been replaced by a rather dour and stifling ideology, to the detriment of Muslims and India as a whole.

Furthermore, the practice of some north Indian Muslim families to have their children marry Pakistanis sets off alarm bells among Hindus. By comparison, an American family would think nothing of it if one of their children married a Canadian, since their is no hostility between the two nations. But to marry a Pakistani, a largely imaginary nation with an invented history, one that defines itself through its hostility to India, that sponsors groups that slaughter and maim Indian civilians – is upsetting to Hindus. After all, with the second largest Islamic population in the world, there is no shortage of Muslims within India to marry.

I believe Indian Muslims can be an example to Muslims in other nations. The amazing achievement of some of the Muslims above shows that Muslims can succeed in a democratic framework, even when they are a minority. But Muslims must realize that religion needs to be separated from the functioning of government, particularly in nations where they are not a majority. Growing up in NY, I could never take off for Durga Puja. So I would have to do all my homework the Sunday night after festivities were over. My parents never said the school owed me a day off for my religion. My parents did not think it was “un-Hindu” of me to sing Christmas carols with my classmates.

To sum up, the backward state of many Indian Muslims is important to the Hindu majority. While Hindus should not demand that Muslims abandon their faith, Muslims should not expect to be left alone, when their dysfunction is having such negative consequences for the country as a whole.

KXB, a lot of North Indian Muslims marry Pakistanis because they are related to them. In a lot of tribes in North Indian Muslim communities they only marry within the tribe. Most of these tribes are now living on both sides of the border. Thats why the bigger pool of Indian Muslims is not available to them.
Also a lot of North Indian Muslims marry within the family ( first and second cousins). Loads of North Indian Muslims have second cousins in Pakistan. Its not because they love Pakistanis. They marry them because their respective parents are siblings or first cousins.
Also the reason that a lot of North Indian girls marry Pakistani Muslim men is because there are not enough educated and rich urdu speaking Muslim men in India. My family is Muslim though I am not. Out of my 14 male first cousins, not a single one is in India anymore. There’s a big shortage of Urdu Speaking rich educated males in India. ( By Urdu speaking I mean from Delhi-UP) Therefore a lot of these Indian Muslim women are now marrying their Urdu speaking relatives in Pakistan. Contrary to what some people think, Urdu Speaking Muslims from Delhi-UP almost never marry anyone whos not from the same ‘culture’. The biggest pool of these people outside Delhi-UP is in Karachi.
If the Hindus would understand this, they would stop getting upset.

Nilu, I do read them again. over and over again. Infact I have memorized most of them. :tongue3:

Al Mujahid,

That explanation does not diminish my contention - that the willingness and preference for north Indian Muslim families to prefer Pakistanis to their fellow Indians will further the fear that a fifth column is forming in India. This unwillingness to find a mate among the dozens of groups within India shows that, “I prefer the dysfunction of the old versus the opportunities of the new.” Not to mention the health risks in marrying a first cousin, which report higher rates of birth defects. In my own Bengali family, I have 5 first cousins. For those in India, two did a traditional arranged marriage to another Bengali Hindu, one married his longtime Bengali Hindu girlfriend, one married her “Tribal” boyfriend. In America, my American-raised cousin married her longtime white boyfriend. Each scenario presented challeges to their parents, but they understood that this was no longer the 18th century, and that if they want to take advantage of the material comforts of the modern age, they will also have to deal with modern ideas like free agency. But for too many Muslim, who believe in submission to Allah, the modern age is illusory, glory is in the past.

My aunt told me she can’t figure out why when her Muslim girlfriends (Indian, Arab, and Bangladeshi) in America attend a Hindu wedding, they have no problems enjoying a glass of wine or a beer. But those same Muslim women at a Muslim wedding will not only not drink it, but not even serve it to their non-Muslim guests. It stuck her, and me, as hyprcritical. I joked, “Allah does not care about what happends in a kaffir wedding.”

I agree with everything you are saying. I think the Indian Muslim community does need to modernise. The modernisation has to come from within though and not from pressure by the Hinduvta Brigade. Changes have to come from within as outside pressure just makes people want to hold on to the past.
I dont have statistics on the Indian-Pakistani marriages, but it seems that lately the percentage has gone down significantly ( primarily due to Visa problems as I understand)

Again, when upper caste thugs murder lower castes in Bihar, do lower castes around the country conclude that there has been a “provocation” and rush around murdering all the Brahmins they can find?

Not only spurious, but devious argument as well.

There’s no identity called “upper caste”, as also “lower caste”. To see the deviousness in D’Souza’s argument, consider another one on similar lines: “When semitic-faith thugs murder polytheists, do polytheists go around murdering all Goan Catholics they can find?”


Cheers,
RR

Just who is this “frightened and distrustful Hindu community”?

Kashmiri Pandits, among others, for example?

While on the subject, can Mr D’Souza do some rough math and tell us:

1) how many column-inches of oped and front-page news have been published in the last 15 years about the plight of Kashmiri Hindus

2) how many column-inches have been published on Gujarat (by which I do NOT mean Godhra) riot victims?

3) what’s the ratio of (1) to (2) ?

Here’s another idea for a blog entry, Shanti: “No media frenzy? My left foot.” ;-)

Oops, I didn’t bring out the emphasis clearly in enough:

) how many column-inches of oped and front-page news have been published in the last 15 years about the plight of Kashmiri Hindus

2) how many column-inches have been published on Gujarat (by which I do NOT mean Godhra) riot victims in the last two years?

I’m not positing an impossible metric like “column-inches per annum”. Absolute, cumulative figures will do. It’s not as if I’m asking Mr D’Souza to compare apples and apples. I won’t be that unreasonable!

Cheers,
RR

Al Mujahid:

The incentive to change in all societies always comes from outside pressures. The Black Death in Europe helped start the Reformation, when the Catholic Church could not effectively deal with the epidemic. India abandoned socialism when the Soviets collapsed and could not prop up their corrupt system. When Perry went into Tokyo, Japan modernized and becamse an indusrial power. The Mughals experienced pressure of the British, and unwilling to change, crumbled from decay. The idea that change must come from within is an excuse to do nothing.

Here’s another idea for a blog entry, Shanti: “No media frenzy? My left foot.” ;-)

Ooops again, too fast typing. That should have read:

No media frenzy? My Left foot!

Cheers,
RR

Arnt Goan Catholics polytheist themselves ?

That’s why I know — without her having to write it at the bottom of letters, or shout it from her balcony, or feel it after a politician wins, or see only ogres across religious lines — that she is proud to belong to a great and wise tradition. Proud to be Hindu

Tears are welling up in my eyes … at this moving description of what a Proud Hindu is — and therefore ought to be — from a person with a Christian-sounding name.

If only Mr D’Souza charged a penny from Hindus for every sermon he delivered to them, he’d have given Bill Gates a run for his money.

Cheers,
RR

RR, contrary to Indian Media reports, the Muslim growth rate has actually gone down in India in the last decade. There goes your rant on why the Muslim growth rate is increasing if they are oppressed.
Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3637562.stm

Nilu, you have a point. I was far too long-winded before. Now about that million dollars…

Shanti, I have never used the word fascist for Hindus. In any case, I don’t think anyone who does use it means that ALL Hindus are fascist. They are quite clear that they mean those guys who claim to speak for Hinduism yet think nothing of lying, rioting, killing.

I’ve been to Charminar (used to live in Hyd). I’ve been to heavily Muslim areas of Bom, once just a few days ago (have a post on my blog about this). Also in other parts of the country. My brother and his wife, doctors, have tramped through Muslim areas in MP, Orissa, TN, Gujarat. I could go on. None of us ever looked over our shoulders hoping not to upset the Muslims. We just went about our purpose as we would do anywhere else, and nobody bothered us. Why would they?

Plenty of people have told me that Hindus (and more generally, non-Muslims) now fear wandering in Muslim areas. When I asked, very few of them had actually tried it themselves. They preferred to assume and pass on this pronouncement. Join us for ramzan khana on Mohammedali Rd in Bombay one of these years. It may start to change some of those impressions.

KXB, you make some thoughtful points. You’re right: the condition of India’s Muslims is a concern to the rest of the country. You’re also right about the broadness of the term “Indian”, and how that makes people seek and hold onto their other identities. I’m trying to suggest this to Shanti and others: there’s a need to think about such pronouncements as “Muslim provocation”, and “frightened and distrustful Hindu community.” Because this language, left unquestioned, turns into attitudes that found ugly expression in Gujarat.

Finally, I would argue that more Indians — whether Muslim or not — should marry Pakistanis (and vice versa…). This may be the only way we’ll start to see that they’re not ogres on the other side, despite our initial fears.

Nilu, I’m listening…

Dilip:

Indians do not marry Nepalis, Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis in large numbers for their to be peace among those nations. France and Germany did not learn to live peacefully with each other because they began to marry each other. What brought about peace was a realization by the belligerent nation that it was no longer feasible to continue hostilities. India, under various regimes, has repeatedly offered peace with Pakistan, only to be spurned. After all, without a threatening neighbor, the Pakistani army cannot continue to justify its dominance in that country.

Wasn’t Advani criticized for suggesting that better relations with Pakistan will promote Hindu-Muslim harmony? It was a foolish comment, cause it plays into the idea that Muslims are not real Indians. The sooner Indian Muslims realize that their future is in India, and not the sand dunes of Arabia or the manicured lawns of Lahore, the sooner Hindus will drop their suspicions.

Shanti, have you read Samina Ali’s ‘Madras on Rainy Days’. Its a novel by an Indian American on her marriage to a dude in Hyderabad and her married life in Hyderabad. I think you grew up in Hyderabad as well. Should be an interesting read for you.

Did you ever, Hindu reader, consider it any of your business to define what a “Proud Christian” or “Proud Muslim” ought to be? Did the thought ever even cross your mind? What makes non-Hindus take such liberties with Hindus though? Or is it no liberty-taking at all, but the urge to do something urgently to restore status quo, an urge driven by fear, fear that these Hindus who are supposed to remain divided into warring castes are vocally asserting their Hindu identity?

Please give it a thought.

Regards,
RR

KXB,

As before, you raise some thought-provoking points. Perhaps I phrased it wrong.

For one thing, I didn’t want to suggest that Indians and Pakistanis should marry more in order to bring peace between Hindus and Muslims, but to reduce suspicions between Indians and Pakistanis. I think, like you, that that implication Advani made was foolish and dangerous (still, only typical of the man).

For another, yes, I see your point about marriage not being the vehicle to peace between India and Nepal/SL, nor between France and Germany. I’m saying more marriages across the borders would reduce tensions too (in addition to other measures) and therefore I welcome them. So, perhaps, should we all. In fact, I’m all for more Indians marrying people from all over the world (and vice versa… ).

More marriages between the religions in India would also go some distance towards reducing the mistrust between those religions. Borders, whether between religions or countries, should be breached, even if by only a few. Or they too easily become barriers of hate.

I’m not thrilled about this one:

> The sooner Indian Muslims realize that their future
> is in India … the sooner Hindus will drop their
> suspicions.

Because, first, there’s the implication once more that ALL Muslims think their future is outside India. Any statement like this needs to be thought through and questioned (which is the same point I was trying to make earlier about “Muslim provocation” etc). I know plenty of Indian Muslims who make their lives squarely within India. Have I just been wonderfully lucky to stumble on the enlightened few who don’t see their futures outside India?

Second, in essence what is wrong with seeking a future outside India anyway? Plenty of other Indians do it — you don’t need me to tell you what a NRI is. (I was one once, too). Are their co-religionists within India therefore targets of suspicion?

Third, suspicion is a tough beast. Overcoming it is not the sole responsibility of its targets, but of those who bear the suspicions too. If some people truly believe all Indian Muslims are suspect, I think those people need to subject that belief itself to serious questioning. Just like some of my Christian friends who think Hindus are somehow lesser people (and thus show only how small they themselves are) need to question that impression too.

Finally, I’d like to ask: Would you say that Indian Hindus should only marry other Indian Hindus because “The sooner Indian Hindus realize that their future is among other Indian Hindus, the better”? Is there an analogy to what you said above? A valid one? No? Why or why not?

Anyone know how that yellow smiley turned up in my previous comment? I did nothing to provoke it.

KXB, one more thing and I’ll stop (Nilu please note):

> India, under various regimes, has repeatedly
> offered peace with Pakistan, only to be spurned.
> After all, without a threatening neighbor, the
> Pakistani army cannot continue to justify its
> dominance in that country.

Have you ever asked a Pakistani about these offers of peace? It might surprise you. They believe it is India who does not want peace, hard as it is for Indians to swallow that. Which is one more reason there should be more marriages and generally, meetings between Indians and Pakistanis — so they can air and thrash through these fantastically different perceptions about each other without killing each other.

And have you also asked yourself, what would Indian politics be like without the bogey of the “threatening neighbour”? — which, as you say rightly, the Pak army is always ready to raise. Every PM from at least Indira has spoken darkly of that foreign hand, and used it as a convenient way to avoid addressing major issues within India. What if they were questioned more loudly when they use that bogey, just as you question the Pak Army’s use of it?

Have you ever asked a Pakistani about these offers of peace? It might surprise you. They believe it is India who does not want peace, hard as it is for Indians to swallow that.

It appears that Mr D’Souza swallows it, hook, line and sinker.

Among the definitions of “moral equivalence” I found, here are two:

“the practice of considering the opponents in a conflict to have the same moral standing.”

“Moral equivalence is … the claim that ‘there can no moral or ethical hierarchy decided between two sides in a conflict, nor in the actions or tactics of the two sides.’”

It turns out that the moral equivalence that Mr D’Souza is labouring hard to posit between India and Pakistan is not only dubious, but propagandistic in nature as well, for it is the line that is music to the ears of the ruling elite of Pakistan, a line peddled by Musharrafs and Hamid Guls and it is the line peddled by the D’Souzas as well. The pretense here is that there are no facts on hand that enable us to objectively assess the claims of two sides; that your judgment is clouded by the fact of you being an Indian — a prejudiced, jingoistic Indian, Mr D’Souza would have said, if he were not patronizing you - and Pakistanis speak as they do, naturally because they are Pakistani! It’s only a matter of mutual “suspicions”, which, if only we learn to overcome, we”ll live together happily everafter.

KXB, since Mr D’Souza is making a mighty show of ignoring my questions, you could ask him why is that he is delivering a sermon on “suspicions” to you? Has he delivered one to himself? Has he ever talked to Hindutavadis about the hate campaigns he claims they are running? He might be surprised: they say that it is people like him who are running a hate campaign against them! Perhaps he ought to make it his responsibility to overcome his suspicion of Hindutvavadis and attempt to build bridges with them. Maybe he should marry his children into the Bal Thackeray family. Maybe then we’ll hear more of logical argument from him and less of sermon. Hope springs eternal.

Cheers,
RR

:angry::evil::huh:

And have you also asked yourself, what would Indian politics be like without the bogey of the “threatening neighbour”?

That’s right. The terrorism against India, the attack on our Parliament, the grabbing of our land, the decimation of Hindu minority in Pakistan, the shanty towns hosting Kashmiri Hindus, Akshardham, Bombay blasts, the ISI cells — these are all chimera, miasma, bogey. Listen to Mr D’Souza’s hypnotic baritone chant: “Close your eyes. Now you are entering into a deep slumber. The threatening neighbour is a bogey. You are now believing that the threatening neighbour is a bogey! It has reached into your subconscious that the threatening neighbour is a bogey! It is now positively an article of faith for your that the threatening neighbour is a bogey! There now! You wake up, open your eyes, and the first thing you say is: ‘the threatening neighbour is a bogey!’”

Cheers,
RR

Sorry, I couldn’t resist, I just couldn’t (the other Dilip, pl forgive me) —

since Mr D’Souza is making a mighty show of ignoring my questions

You’re being ignored? So, so sad.

Sudhakar.

I would like to see some evidence of ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Pakistan (not from Kashmir) in the last few decades (not pre -1950) from a credible publication.
I have never heard of it before. I am not aware of Hindu-Muslim riots in Pakistan either. Maybe theres Hindu Emigration from Pakistan. But ‘decimation’ and ‘ethnic cleansing’……hmmm………..I would like to see some evidence for that. Seems to me its another lie from the pathologically dishonest Jai Shree Ram brigade.

Muslim fascism in action.

They had “serious grievances”. Therefre, these Muslim fascists raped kids before killing them.

RR

PS: Just to clarify, by “Mulsim fascism” I mean those who claim to speak for Muslims and Islam but think nothing of raping and killing.

——————————————

Beslan schoolgirls were raped, say survivors

Asian News International
London, September 10

Video shots of terrified school children huddled together in the Beslan school gym was probably the tip of the iceberg as far as the atrocities perpetrated on the innocent children by the militants was concerned, as horrifying tales of survivors narrating stories of schoolgirls being raped, are circulating in the grief stricken town.

According to The Sun, survivors are narrating tales of how schoolgirls as young as fourteen and fifteen along with women teachers were sexually abused before being shot dead in cold blood.

“No one talks about it openly but the whole city knows that three teachers and at least four older pupils were raped. There are also stories about younger girls aged only 12 being assaulted. I myself saw the four girls in the assembly hall
close to the gym being picked out and taken away. The girls came back three hours later crying uncontrollably. No one was in any doubt what had happened to them,” the paper quoted a 15-year-old student named Indira Tsappoyeva as saying.

RR, do you have evidence for your assertion that ‘Hindus are being decimated/ethnically cleansed in Pakistan’ or are you going to continue to repeat this without backing it up ?

AM, here is alink about the Plight of Hindus in Pakistan that cites numbers and sources.

From hrw.org - “The Hindu minority in Pakistan has also been the target of violent attacks. After extremist Hindu mobs destroyed a 16th century mosque, the Babri Masjid, in Ayodhya, India, in December 1992, mobs in Pakistan destroyed Hindu temples, as well as homes and shops owned by Hindus. Hindus were attacked and murdered, in some cases in the presence of officials. The persecution of Hindus and other minorities in Pakistan will be the focus of a 1994 Asia Watch report. ”

another hrw report - “The riots that followed the destruction of a sixteenth-century mosque in Ayodhya, India, in December 1992 were replicated in Pakistan. Hundreds of Hindus were assaulted throughout the country and at least six, a woman and her five children, burnedto death. Hundreds of homes and some 120 temples were burned or damaged. In many of the incidents, local police and government officials passively watched and did not intervene to stop the violence. “

Mujahid, I shall be glad to provide the evidence you asked for. But first, a question out of curiosity, and a small bit of relevant information.

The question: Are you Pakistani? I ask this question because I’m a little surprised as to why an Indian should be so concerned about Pakistan’s image and honour; or should believe, despite Pakistan’s track record of genocide in Bangladesh, that it would be oh-so-kind to minorities within its own borders.

Info: India’s Muslim population according to 1951 census constitued about 10% (9.6% IIRC) of the total population; today it stands at 13.4%.

Cheers,
RR

Dilip asked, “Have you ever asked a Pakistani about these offers of peace? It might surprise you. ”

Yes – one of my classmates in GW business school was from Pakistan, but was living with his brother in the northern Virginia suburbs while taking classes. We worked on a project together studying the burgeoning pharmaceutical market in India. But whatever I may have thought of him (nice, sharp guy - but tended to repeat economci and financial data from source material without interpretation) I am not going to automatically extend to Pakistan’s unelected military regime. He liked Musharaff, believing it was the only way to keep the “religious nuts” at bay. But he was surprised to learn that India had more Muslims than Pakistan, and by the number of prominent Indian Muslim businessmen such as Hamid from Cipla.

Dilip, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that most of Pakistan’s offers of peace have been, “Let’s talk about Kashmir, and we’ll stop the militants from crossing the border”, or “Implement the UN resolutions.” Anything aside from these two positions seems out of the question. New Delhi has given up any realistic claim to the portion of Kashmir under Islamabad’s rule.

Your notion that marriage will contribute to the lessening of tension between rival groups is as misguided as the American notion of marriage to one’s “soulmate.” Historically, marriage has served a number of purposes – transfer of wealth and property, raising children to contribute to the family’s welfare. Promoting peace is not one of them, cause here is the uncomfortable truth – tribes are always more restrictive of who their women marry than their men. After all, the Koran allows a Muslim man to marry a Jew or Christian, or an idolator once she abandons her faith. This option is not extended to a Muslim woman. While there are a number of fairy tales where a low caste woman can marry a high caste man (marrying-up), a high caste woman was prohibited from marrying a low-caste man. To take an example from American showbiz – when Britney Spears announced her engagement to one of her backup dancers (high woman, low man), people said she was crazy. Meanwhile, actor Nicholas Cage quietly married a sushi waitress (high man, low woman). In Bollywood, the new trend seems to be featuring white women as objects of an Indian man’s lust, while the white women seduce the Indian man. Are the moguls of Bombay going to produce films where well-built white men are traveling through India, romancing hordes of bronze beauties? Not likely.

To return to politics – peace between nations comes about through conscious political decisionmaking. Egypt and Israel have peace not because their people are marrying each other, but because Sadat took a risk, and realized that perpetual war was not in Egypt’s interest. Same with Jordan – King Hussein realized he could not afford to constantly war with the Israelis. The Pakistanis have to realize that they are a smaller country in economics, military, and global standing – not amount of trips to Camp David will change that. Think about the logics for a minute – if Hindu-dominant India hates Muslims, why would they seek to conquer Pakistan, and thereby doubling its Muslim population?

As for Indian voters, I studied patterns of Indian voting for my junior paper in college – Indian voters seem to put the price of food above all else. Once inflation hits 10%, voters throw out whoever is in charge. Indira Gandhi’s status as a war leader did not prevent voters from throwing her out because of her inept economic management. Vajpayee’s attempts to garner a higher global profile for India did not matter much to Indian farmers. Indian politicians may try to use the anti-Pakistan card to garner votes, but it doesn’t work. Now, as far as Pakistani elections – oh wait, their elections really don’t matter since the army gets to pick who is in charge.

As for Hindus in Pakistan:
“The Hindu population in West Pakistan, that is today Pakistan, was 20% in 1941. That came down to 1.5% in 1951. It is today less than 1%.”
http://www.newindpress.com/Column.asp?ID=IEH20020531144657&P=old

Shanti—

Your excerpts from HRW about the violence in Pak post-Dec ‘92 are telling. But they don’t quite answer AM’s question. Attacks and murders of Hindus (the woman and five children the report mentioned), while nauseating, doesn’t quite amount to “Decimation/ethnic cleansing”. Is there documentation of why the Pak Hindu population has declined so steeply?

Also, I always wonder, why are we comparing ourselves to a filure of a country like Pakistan. Pak’s treatment of its minorities should be a warning to us, not an argument that buttresses our own episodes of shame. Yet I read that “Plight of Hindus in Pakistan” link you provided and I was amazed at how closely some of it resembled us, but in mirror image.

“Hindus forced to flee their homes”, “Temples and homes set ablaze”, “increased activism by militant religious groups”, “uproar caused by the conversion issue”, “general attitude towards Hindus is one of suspicion”, “Hindus in Pak have faced the greatest trial when there has been tension betwen India and Pakistan”, “Hindus in Pakistan have been perceived as enemies” … couldn’t at least some of these sentences, in mirror imagfe, have been about India?

Should we aspire higher or should we muck around in the same muck those guys occupy?

I’m a little surprised as to why an Indian should be so concerned about Pakistan’s image and honour

But what about if an Indian should be concerned about the truth in these matters? Would that trouble or “surprise” you?

Sudhakar.

Sudhakar, AM asked for examples and I provided them - no more, no less. Sometimes, there is nothing to read in between the lines.

Red salutes, Nair.

But what about if an Indian should be concerned about the truth in these matters?

Truth in what matters, comrade?

Cheers,
RR

Tavleen Singh in Indian Express today:

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=36034

The entire article is packed with powerful arguments so I don’t which shall I excerpt to post here. I make an attempt though.

RR

——-

After Beslan, the least we can do is not desecrate the memory of those children who died such terrible deaths by talking about political causes in the same breath as terrorism …

For me if there was anything more sickening than the horror of those tiny hostages in the Beslan school, it was the justification of the horror by liberal commentators across the world, including in our own country …

You cannot condemn acts of terrorism in New York and Madrid but justify them in Beslan because you think the Chechens have a political cause. You cannot justify them in New Delhi and Mumbai because you think the Kashmiris have a political cause…

Islamic terrorists are winning the global war against terrorism because the countries who are its victims have not had the courage to look evil in the face and call it evil or dared to admit that we are up against malevolent forces the like of which the world has not seen since Nazi Germany…

Our governments fund madarsas and other Islamic institutions without admitting that even the most moderate teach the difference between believers and infidels. When a child grows up believing in this difference, it does not take long for radical preachers to convince him that in the holy war that good Muslims are now fighting to ‘‘save Islam’’, killing infidel children is alright…

Truth in what matters, comrade?

All right. Youre the man who, in an earlier discussion I followed, said this:

The journalist can’t even counter an argument without associating the person advancing it with his pet hate, the Shiv Sena, and in the very first sentence to boot.

So when the man who offered us this analysis is asked for evidence for something he said, what do we hear from him?

Are you Pakistani?

Not simply “associating” AM with Pakistanis, but directly asking, thereby trying hard to get us to think that he is one. (And so what, in any case? Are Pakistanis not allowed to comment on this blog?)

You do go on to this “explanation”:

I ask this question because I’m a little surprised as to why an Indian should be so concerned about Pakistan’s image and honour.

And so I asked, what if an Indian is simply concerned about the truth? About he truth of this decimation and ethnic cleansing, for example. Would that also make you a “little surprised”? Would you ask AM “Are you a Pakistani”?

Well, that’s what AM was trying to do. Get at the truth.

But apparently we’re dealing with a man who finds Tavleen Singh compelling. A man to whom anything he doesn’t not agree with turns a magazine into a “15 rupee freak show”.

Really, Dilip (not DeSouza) got it right. Best to ignore. Okay, back to our regularly sceduled ignoring.

Sudhakar.

KXB:

You say:

> But whatever I may have thought of him, I am not going to
> automatically extend to Pakistan’s unelected military regime.

Sort of like my Pakistani friend, who once told me, “You’re fine, it’s your government that’s the problem.”

> Dilip, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that most of
> Pakistan’s offers of peace have been, “Let’s talk about Kashmir,
> and we’ll stop the militants from crossing the border”, or
> “Implement the UN resolutions.”

Nope, I think you’re quite right. And our answer, at least to the first of those, has been “Nope, no talks on Kashmir.”And so we’ve gone on for 57 years, saying the same thing, much like Dr Seuss’s North-going Zax and South-going Zax. (Worth reading if you haven’t.)

As for that second thing you said, “Implement the UN resolution”, India’s answer has been, and should remain, “read the damn resolution!” It says this: “As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.”

According to the resolution, it is AFTER Pak’s withdrawal of its troops that India must withdraw its own forces. Then, and only then, can such things as a plebiscite happen.

In other words, if we’re talking about the UN resolution, the withdrawal of Pakistani troops is the first thing that must happen, and shall we say, I don’t believe that has happened.

(Here’s the UN resolution of Aug 13 1948).

> Your notion that marriage will contribute to the lessening of tension
> between rival groups is as misguided as the American notion of
> marriage to one’s “soulmate.”

Misguided? If you say so! I know of plenty of marriages across caste and community and religious and national lines that have brought greater understanding of the “other” to the families concerned, and slowly to those around the families and beyond. My own parents’ families for a proximate example, but others as well.

I don’t think “soulmate” is just an American notion. I certainly feel my soulmate shares my home with me…

But we are straying (I think?) from the discussion.

> if Hindu-dominant India hates Muslims…

I don’t believe Hindu dominant India hates Muslims. I think only that a particular part of our ideological spectrum has made political capital out of peddling hate for Muslims. I thank someone every day that that notion has never managed to spread beyond about 20-25 % (looking purely at voting percentages) of the population.

But I do think there’s an issue you have touched on here. HM Seervai, possibly our greatest constitutional scholar and an impeccable researcher, explored it at greater length in his “Partition of India: Legend and Reality”, which is a book I think every Indian should read and absorb. In essence, he says that the demand for Pakistan grew out of the Muslim fear that their rights would not be automatically safe in a Hindu-dominated India, and so the Muslim League demanded special constitutional guarantees for those safeguards. The Congress response was that a one-man one-vote democracy was protection enough. Whatever you may think of that, the result was that the League got frustrated that its repeated demand for these provisions were always met with this reply. Which is why their demand, in the end, became for a separate country.

But don’t take my clumsy precis of the book — get it and read it. There are some lessons for today, and you also might be surprised by who among the figures from our freedom struggle come out looking best, and who ends up with a deal of egg on their faces.

Lallahoos comrade Nair,

Have you actually read what Mujahid said?

He didn’t say: “hey RR, I know that Pakistan attempted ethnically cleansing Banlgadesh of minorities. I know that it successfully cleansed Kashmir valley of minorities. I can see that it is plaussible that it has cleansed its own territory of HIndu minority. Still, for truth’s sake, I’d like to see some evidence of your claim.”

That’s not what he said. What he said suggests that he, unlike a man concerned about truth of the matter, has already prejudged it! :

I would like to see some evidence for that. Seems to me its another lie from the pathologically dishonest Jai Shree Ram brigade.

Comrade Khanna Mukta , if Mujahid starts out by placing his immense faith in Pakistan, even before I have had a chance to respond, why I shouldn’t I be a little surprised? Given, moreover, his nick “Mujahid”, and his scorn for “2-penised-gods”?

Cheers,
RR

Dilip D’Souza’s trademark is that he has an argument for every season, and then some for the unseasonal rains.

In essence, he says that the demand for Pakistan grew out of the Muslim fear that their rights would not be automatically safe in a Hindu-dominated India,

We learn from him that “Muslim provocation” is an erroneous term. But “Muslim fear” is not? Let’s praphrase his “logic”:

Who says “Muslim fear”? This is another trap that the likes of Jinnah and gang have led us into. Some maniacs claimed that they were “afraid” of Hindu majority. They happen to be Muslim. Why is that termed a “Muslim fear”?

and so the Muslim League demanded special constitutional guarantees for those safeguards.

Is the Muslim League synonymous with Indian Muslims!?

But why not we judge the legitimacy of Muslim League’s demands by looking at what constitutional safeguards it provided in Pakistan for its minorities? None!

It turns out that:

1. “Muslim fear” was a myth
2. Muslim League was not speaking for Muslims.
3. And history proves Congress right in that the League’s demands for privileges were the demands of a blackmailer.

The Congress response was that a one-man one-vote democracy was protection enough. Whatever you may think of that, the result was that the League got frustrated that its repeated demand for these provisions were always met with this reply.

Did the Congress get frustrated with the repeated demands of somebody who was claiming to speak for Muslims advancing spurious arguments like “Muslim fear”?

RR, in your infinite naivete, you continue to be baffled by my ID. My ID Mujahid means ‘One who struggles’. I am presuming that your are confusing it with Mujahideen which means ’ Struggler for Faith’ or its more commom usage which is in the self styled title adopted by Islamic Radicals/Terrorists/Militants.
I guess you believe that any Indian who would use an Arabic nickname is either a Pakistani or an ISI agent.
My ‘scorn’ for the two penised God was to stop you from your puerile attempts at being sarcastic about Allah and his or his followers virgins and actually debate Beslan.
If you would actually read my earlier posts, you would find that I have already stipulated to and not contested the Genocide in Bangladesh/Violence in Kashmir.
Have I prejudged your claims about an ‘Ethnic Cleansing of Hindus in Pakistan’ ? Yes. I think I am ‘reasonably’ well informed and I find it highly unlikely that there would be a genocide in Pakistan and I would not hear/read about it.
I am not sure if I should dignify your question by responding to your malicious, Muslims being the 5th Column in India question of ‘Whether I am a Pakistani’ ?
The reason I am concerned about this allegation is because this is ONE of the justifications used by your brothers in Hinduvta to pluck out babies from the wombs of pregnant mothers (www.hrw.org)
If this allegation was laid to rest, it will be one less reason for your brothers in Anti-Pseudo Secular movement to gang raping teenage girls (www.hrw.org) before burning them alive.
Your lame attempt at equating the challenging of the Talking Points of the ‘Kill Indian Minorities brigade’ to being a Pakistani or an ISI agent or sympathizer is rather sad.
For the record, NO, I am not a citizen of the Land of the Pure nor is it my country of origin.
So can I now have the evidence for the ‘ETHNIC CLEANSING/GENOCIDE of Hindus in Pakistan after 1950 from a credible publication Note : Dont give me statistics on Kashmir or from 1941 Hindu population of states in modern day Pakistan or the rate of Hindu emigration from Pakistan. Give me hard evidence of either ‘ETHNIC CLEANSING’ or GENOCIDE in any of the 5 provinces of Pakistan.

KXB,
You made a rather fantastic assertion that ” The sooner the Indian Muslims realize that their future in not in the sand dunes of Pakistan or manicured laws of Lahore the sooner it will take care of the suspicions of the Hindus”
This was an incredibly presumptive attempt of understanding the aspirations of Indian Muslims living all over India from a Bengali Non-Muslim born and raised in the US.
I am sure that you have some anecdotal evidence to back this incredibly dangerous ‘Indian Muslims being the 5th column’ assertion.
Demonising a whole group of 139 Million Indians as people who aspire to be in a foreign nation and dont relate to India as their country is a notion that is dangerous for Indians and India.
I hope that in future you will not repeat this completely unfounded slander in any public forum.

Dear RR,
The fact that the Pakistani Constitution does not guarantee rights for the minorities ( actually it initally did till Zia later changed the Constitution) is not evidence for the fact that there was no ‘Muslim fear’ of lack of safeguards in a Hindu Majority Undivided India in the 40’s.
Muslim League never claimed to be the champions of ‘Minority Rights’. Muslim League wanted to safeguard ‘Muslim Rights’ and the fact that the Pakistani Constitution does not guarantee Minority Rights in no way proves that the ‘Muslim fears’ in 1940’s were not legitimate.
Muslim League did speak for Muslims. It won an over whelming majority of Muslim votes except in NWFP and Punjab ( where the Union Party was loyal to the British) The Union Party did endorse the idea of ‘Pakistan’ as well, so except for NWFP the Muslims all over the undivided India did vote for ‘Pakistan’.
Why didnt the Congress Party give the Constitutional guarantees the Muslim League was asking for ? Do you think the Muslim League should have ignored the overwhelming mandate it got from the Muslims and instead relied upon Congress to speak for Muslims through its token Muslim Show Boy aka Maulana Azad.
If the Congress Party had given the ‘Constituional guarantees’, Pakistan would have never been created. It was the failure of the congress party to give constitutional guarantees/power sharing with the League which led to the ‘Muslim fear’.
The fact that the India Constitution in a divided India later gave ‘Minority Rights’ does not negate the Muslim fears of early 40’s in undivided India . The fears were genuine and were a result of the refusal by the Congress Party to give any constitutional guarantees.

Salaam alekum, Mujahid.

RR, in your infinite naivete, you continue to be baffled by my ID. My ID Mujahid means ‘One who struggles’

In your infinite wisdom, you continue to believe that I have no way of finding that out for myself.

According to http://dictionary.al-islam.com

Mujahid: Muslim warrior who fights in the cause of Allah

Now, it is bad enough that there are in the 21st century Muslim warriors fighting in the cause of Allah, but there being Indians among them troubles me, to be honest. And by default, I assume that there are NO Indians among them. Am I doing injustice to Indian Muslims by assuming so?

My ‘scorn’ for the two penised God was to stop you from your puerile attempts at being sarcastic about Allah

I have not been sarcastic of Allah, dear Mujahid. I have been only of those who kill in the name of Allah the all-merciful and compassionate.

If Islamic idea of Allah is that of an entity who does NOT endorse the harming and killing of innocent people for WHATEVER cause or reason, I assure you that I have immense respect for Him/Her/It.

I engage in discussions with Pakistanis on the net. My experience has been that while they almost always begin with impeccable politeness, pretty soon descend to throwing filthy abuse, almost always at Hindu deities. This self-rightenousness I presume arises from being brainwashed in schools, mosques and homes that while Islam is the “perfect” religion, Hinduism is a “primitive” one.

Have I prejudged your claims about an ‘Ethnic Cleansing of Hindus in Pakistan’ ? Yes.

Thank you for clarifying this point. Comrade Nair Khanna Mukta has been frothing at the mouth that I have not given you consideration due to a truth-seeker. But a truth-seeker has to be open-minded.

I think I am ‘reasonably’ well informed and I find it highly unlikely that there would be a genocide in Pakistan and I would not hear/read about it.

To be informed is not to make conjectures, dear Mujahid. Have you been informed that there was no ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Pakistan? What was the source of that information?

The reason I am concerned about this allegation is because this is ONE of the justifications used by your brothers in Hinduvta to pluck out babies from the wombs of pregnant mothers

But the reason I am concerned is that Mujahids are murdering, raping and killing world over — most recently in Beslan — and why should Indians, of whatever religious persuasion, be involved in this? They are not. Therefore I reckoned that one who calls himself mujahid might not be an Indian.

For the record, NO, I am not a citizen of the Land of the Pure nor is it my country of origin

Thank you for clarifying that up too, but for an Indian your eagerness to absolve Pakistan of ethnic-cleansing Hindus, even when you admit that you are aware of Pakistan’s achievements in the ethnic-cleansing department, is strange to say the least.

Dont give me statistics on Kashmir or from 1941 Hindu population of states in modern day Pakistan or the rate of Hindu emigration from Pakistan. Give me hard evidence of either ‘ETHNIC CLEANSING’ or GENOCIDE in any of the 5 provinces of Pakistan.

Excuse me, it seems to me that you’re setting some very tough conditionalities so that you can discredit the evidence I shall present. Why is emigration from Pakistan not evidence of ethnic-cleansing? After all, you could say that the Pandits also “emigrated”.


Cheers,
RR

Shanti thank you for the article you posted. However it gives population statistics from 1941. It doesnt account for the emigration from Pakistan during partition. No reasonable person would classify the murderous attacks on Hindus in 92 and otherwise (however heinous and despicable) as documented in that article as ETHNIC CLEANSING or GENOCIDE as RR asserted. I do understand that you never claimed that anyway. Also I asked for a credible publication. Pakistan-facts.com is not exactly either credible or reputable.

Walekum-Asslam RR,
No my conditions are not tough at all. I put two conditions. (1) Post 1950 period ( so an not to include the emigration during Partition) and (2)emigration post 1950
I dont want you to give me a statistic from 1941 as the article given by Shanti did.
Regarding the post 1950 statistics on emigration, please post me the statistics and also the reasons behind it.
If for argument sake you claim that the Kashmiri Pandits are only emigrating or relocating then I will give evidence of mass scale cleansing/destroying/killings by Kashmiri Muslim terrorists of Kashmiri Pandits life and property which will total to ETHNIC CLEANSING OR GENOCIDE.
Likewise if you can give me evidence of mass scale ETHNIC CLEANSING/GENOCIDE like killings and destruction of life and property of Hindus in Pakistan (like the ones of Pandits in Kashmir) that will suffice as the reason for the emigration of Hindus.
So if you want to argue emigration, I would need for your to prove that the the rate of emigration since 1950 has gone up dramatically and then back up the emigration to reasons which would amount to ETHNIC CLEANSING or GENOCIDE.
Just because Pakistan has committed a genocide in Bangladesh does not mean that they have also committed a genocide on Hindus in Pakistan.
Its pretty hard to hide a Genocide or Ethnic Cleansing. Why should it be strange that an Indian would be leary of charges of an unreported genocide and ethnic cleansing.
If I were to tell you that the Sri Lanaks committed a genocide on the Muslims in Sri Lanka shouldnt you be leary even though the Sri Lankans have committed horrible atoricities on the Tamils. Would that mean you are a Sri Lankan or a Sri Lankan symapthizer or as you put it ‘strange’.
Mujahid does mean stuggler. You gave the common usage again. The common usage of the term Mujahid may very well be strivers for Allah. Between does striving for Allah mean that you are striving to kill innocent nonbelievers. Islam means submission to the will of Allah. Does it mean that all followers of Islam are submitters to the will of Allah of killing all innocent nonbelievers.

RR give me any evidence you have of Pakistan committing a genocide or ethnically cleansing Hindus. Any evidence. I have removed all conditions.

No my conditions are not tough at all. I put two conditions. (1) Post 1950 period ( so an not to include the emigration during Partition)

Why not “emigration” during partition?

You claimed — to which point I shall return later — that the Muslim League did speak for Muslims. You say that this fact is proved by Muslims voting overwhelmingly for Muslim league. Yet the majority of Muslims remained in India despite the “Muslim fear” of Hindu majority. Set aside the perfidy aspect — IF your claims are true — of their action; but if Muslims who voiced fears of Hindu majority; who did not buy the Congress argument on democracy being a safeguard of Muslims; if THEY remained in India, what was the need for Hindus on the other side to emigrate en masse? Just for fun?

Cheers,
RR

RR give me any evidence you have of Pakistan committing a genocide or ethnically cleansing Hindus. Any evidence. I have removed all conditions.

Thank you, Mujahid. That’s sweet. Hope you’ll not backpedal.

Here, for example:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE6-2/sridhar.html

RR,
I wont backpedal. Contrary to what you think I dont come here to win an argument. I come here to learn at times and also educate at times.
I am not asking you to show me evidence, so that I can expose you as a liar. (Ok maybe a little ;) but I do really want to know whether I missed a genocide.
The article you have given me the link to from (Bharat-Rakshak ;) is about the Partition era. Surely you would stipulate to the fact that a lot of people were killed of both communities on both sides of the border and the trains coming back and forth in both Lahore and Amritsar used to be empty a lot of times.
When you said the Pakistan has committed a Genocide, I figured you were not referring to the Partition era as millions of BOTH hindus and Muslims died and not Hindus alone. As I understand more Muslims died than Hindus ( this may be due to the fact that more Muslim migrated to Pakistan so statistically more of them were likely to die)
I guess apart from the atrocities of the Partition there was no Genocide/Ethnically Cleansing of Hindus in Pakistan and I would consider this matter to be closed now.

I am not ‘claiming’ that the Muslim League spoke for Muslims. They actually won the majority of the Muslim vote. Call me crazy but I believe that if majority of the Muslims voted for the Muslim League, theres nothing wrong in Muslim League claiming that they spoke for Muslims.

I do not normally paticipate in blogging discussions, except if some point is seeming worth clearing up. I prefer to read and think. So in Ms Shanti’s previous discussion I only mentioned point about RR lying about Mr Praful Bidwai.

And now I am only writing to remark on what kind of man this Mr Reddy appears to be.

First thing, he is unable to believe that somebody really might be disagreeing with him. That is why “Comrade Nair Khanna Mukta” etc.

Second thing, he had objected to association with Shiv Sena, but he immediately brands someone Pakistani.

Third thing, he is drawing conclusions about people from their names and Web ID! This is something very strange. (He says, “one who calls himself mujahid might not be an Indian”) .

Fourth thing, he is expert in putting guilt by implication and bluffing. e.g. example, He is making claim that Hindus are being decimated and ethnically cleansed in Pakistan. Mr AM replies to ask “Where is evidence for this claim?” Mr RR replies that Mr AM must be Pakistani. Mr AM replies that “I find it highly unlikely that there would be a genocide in Pakistan and I would not hear/read about it”. Then Mr RR is actually writing, “Have you been informed that there was no ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Pakistan?”! Turning the whole question around into a claim by bluff!

SUppose I am saying, “All Biharis are murderers.” Then Supose Ms Shanti is replying, “Please provide evidence.” Then if I reply “Do you have evidence that they are not murderers?” Is it Ms Shanti’s duty to provide evidence for something that she was not claimed, but I have quietly implied? Or my duty to provide evidence for mY claim?

But I have noticed that Mr RR is really an expert at this tactic. In Last discussion, Mr AM and Mr Nair asked him to explain why he is seeing moral difference between Gujrat and Baslan, as he himself claimed. Steadily, he refused, and till to date he has not done that.

In every case he is doing the same tactic. What an expert at shifting and dodging Mr RR is! And now he will be producing only one reply. It will be “Lalahoose Dear Comrade Khanna Mukta Nair.” Calling names instead of discussion and standing behind his own claims.

Mukta Khanna.

Salaam alekum Mujahid.

I wont backpedal.

And a few sentences later:

I guess apart from the atrocities of the Partition there was no Genocide/Ethnically Cleansing of Hindus in Pakistan and I would consider this matter to be closed now.

One reason for that is that the Pakis can’t keep on repeating this feat of ethnic cleansing, again again, and however much they wish, because a large enough population doesn’t exist to meirt a cleansing. I’m told that a few thousad Pandits still live in the valley. If they are also driven out by the warriors from across the border, it would be a stretch to call it ethnic cleansing. The cleansing has already happened. Which means that you can actually proudly proclaim, for ALL time to come, that no ethnic cleansing of Pandits has happened after the first bout of cleansing.

Another reason that the remaining 1% Hindu population in Pakiland has not been killed off or converted to Islam is that it happens to be largely dalit, and it was required to do the menial stuff in the egalitarian, castelss Islamic paradise of Pakistan.

You make those wild, unsubstantiated assertions thta people in situation like yours always make: somehow dilute the import of ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Pakistan by claiming that there have been atrocities on both sides. In fact, you go a step ahead and claim, not just without substantiation but falsely, that more Muslims were killed during partition than Hindus.

The document I referred to argues on the basis of statistical evidence that 7.5 million Hindus simply disappeared from Pakistan. They did NOT, repeat NOT, migrate to India. They simply disappeared: which means that some were killed, and rest were converted. The corresponding figure for Muslims in India is 0.43 million.

If “artocities” of the partition explained everything neatly, how come there has not been an ethnic cleansing of Muslims in India during Partition? How come, in fact, that the Muslim population in India is growing at an obscene rate? How come only Hindus got cleansed out only in (West) Pakistan?

Tough questions, Mujahid miyan, and hope will make halal food for your thought.

Cheers,
RR

Actually, I should have said that not only Hindus, but Sikhs also have been ethnically cleansed out of Pakistan.

RR

To briefly touch upon the marriage issue – it is one thing for different groups within a country to marry across ethnic lines. The state has no business in determining who should marry who. However, to be so naïve as to believe marriage between Indians and Pakistanis will automatically lead to peace in South Asia is reckless. First off, Pakistani law does not extend Pakistani citizenship to Indian-born spouses, although India does not have the same restrictions to Pakistani born spouses. India has cordial relations with other South Asian nations without extensive marriage, so looking to marriage as a solution is childish. It takes leadership – which Pakistan is sorely lacking.

I never said that Indian Muslims are a fifth column. What I said is that some Hindus believe that some Muslims are a fifth column. Even if only 10% of Indian Muslims composed a fifth column, that is around 12 million people – more than enough to wreak havoc and breed suspicion. Even though it may seem trivial, it sure seems that plenty of Indian Muslims root of the Pakistani cricket team (even though the Indian team has some stellar Muslim players). How do you propose to address Hindu concerns? Simply dismissing it as Hindutva prejudice is insufficient. A Hindu does not have to be a bigot to object to a Muslim Personal Law that is so backward that other, Muslim majority nations do not have anything like it. Separate laws do not convince other Indians that the Muslim population wants to be treated like any other group. Is it bigoted to suggest that the practice of talaq, talaq, talaq be outlawed? Or that families be penalized for pulling their children out of school? Or selling off extra children to marry Arab sheiks? If a Muslim can live in the US under the same laws as a Christian, Jew, or Hindu – why is it so anathema to Muslims in India?

My living in the US has taught me that Muslims can succeed and live with other groups peaceably – so long as no special arrangements are made for their faith. They can dress how they want, pray how they want, eat what they want – but they are limited in how much they can expect non-Muslims to accommodate them.

To return to the matter of ethnic cleaning in Pakistan. In 1971 – Pakistan consisted of two wings. In the eastern wing, the Pakistani army systematically slaughtered members of its own Bengali Hindu minority community. It did not matter that they were Pakistani citizens. Then there was the extensive bombing of Balochistan in the 1970s, when the Balochs had the temerity to demand a greater say in their own affairs, instead of deferring to the Punjabi majority. And the vibrancy of Sindhi culture is now largely relegated to museums and the Sindhi diaspora.

Looking farther afield to other Muslim lands – we see a dwindling population of Arab Christians in the Middle East. It is interesting that most Arab-Americans are Christian (tracing their ancestry to Lebanon and Syria), but there are few Christians left in Arab countries. Islam’s demolition of Persia’s pre-Islamic culture is well documented. The Zorastrians fled to India and the few Persian Jews left in the world now live in New York. Whether or not Muslim nations actively expel their non-Muslim minorities through force of arms, they make the environment so inhospitable that conversion or emigration become the only viable alternatives.

Lallahoos Khanna Dilip Nair Sudhakar Mukta,

It seems that bile has been so building up inside of you that unable to cope with it any longer you’ve decided to throw your burqa aside and step into the ring. Good show. Keep it up.

So in Ms Shanti’s previous discussion I only mentioned point about RR lying about Mr Praful Bidwai.

You still haven’t gotten around to tell me whether Pra-non-fool is such an ignoramus that he can’t tell between IT and ITES.

he had objected to association with Shiv Sena, but he immediately brands someone Pakistani.

I remain surprised that he who claims that the Muslim League — the pre-partition Muslim league, remember — was the solespokes-entity of Muslims just exatcly as Jinnah claimed is NOT a Pakistani but an Indian. Which is about as surprising as somebody who says, “contrary to Jinnah’s claims, the Congress represented all Indians irrespective of religion” turning out to be Pakistani as opposed to being an Indian.

This is something very strange. (He says, “one who calls himself mujahid might not be an Indian

Well, well, I’m only saying that I’m surprised that he is an Indian. You might call yourself Pol Pot or Attila the Hun for all I care, and still be an Indian, but I reserve my right to be surprised.

Mr AM replies that “I find it highly unlikely that there would be a genocide in Pakistan and I would not hear/read about it”

Did you try the Indian cricket team? They need a spinner.

Mujahid said that he was reasonably informed about the matter.

Then Mr RR is actually writing, “Have you been informed that there was no ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Pakistan?”!

Yep. What did he claim he was informed about, then?

SUppose I am saying, “All Biharis are murderers.” Then Supose Ms Shanti is replying, “Please provide evidence.”

Suppose Shanti also says: “I am reasonably informed that Biharis are not murderers” ? She is making a claim of her own then, Nair Khanna.

In Last discussion, Mr AM and Mr Nair asked him to explain why he is seeing moral difference between Gujrat and Baslan, as he himself claimed.

Good spin. Indian team is really losing out on bigtime talent.

The issue was not seeing a moral difference bit discerning a moral equivalence. But the very fact that you couch it in these terms gives the game away.

It was Mr Nair Khanna who made claim that there is a moral equivalence. I asked him to establish the equvivalence that he is presumably able to see in 70mm. He mumbled something vaguely about causes the rewspective parties were fighting for and then rapidly backed off.

Cheers,
RR

RR,
Now that you wont let the matter rest, before I answer your questions, I want you to give me statistics from a credible and objective publication and not from the Bharat-Rakshak website. If what this article is claiming are irrefutable facts, then surely it wont be that hard for you to confirm the veracity of the assertions in the Bharat-Rakshak website via a credible and objective website.

“He mumbled something vaguely about causes the rewspective parties were fighting for and then rapidly backed off.”

You are telling another lie, Mr Reddy. He gave very exact examples of numbers of deaths and methods of killings. It was you, instead of having intelectual honesty and guts to explain your claim, (or why he was telling wrong) , has for many days only abused others.

It is same tactic as with Mr AM: you make a claim, when asked for evidence you turn it upside-down to say “give evidence for my claim is not true”, then you keep on repeting this. But now we all know that you are having NO evidence. And we all know that you are having NO intelectual honesty.

Do you have honesty now to tell why Gujrat was different from Baslan? Even Ms Shanti’s original posting for this discussion, she said “I am sincerely against anyone who wantonly unleash destruction on innocents - be it Hindus or Muslims or Christians or atheists”, and then “I unequivocally condemn the acts - no ifs and buts.” But you? No Honesty to even stand for your claim.

Mr Bidwai’s article title was “IT Experts or Cyber-Colies”. When I read it and that one paragraph where he is talking about the bad conditions in call-centre, I understood that what point he is raising. We are getting very proud and excited about Indian IT business. But when we are looking at the conditions (i.e. pay, hours of work) for the people, it is right to ask, should we get so proud? OR should we worry about conditions and ask for better? I am having two relatives in call-centre. They are having health problems because of conditions. Mr Bidvai is asking in that article, will we only be excited about expertise in IT? OR will we be worried about how bad conditions so many young people are working in this industry?

But I know it is useuless to mention all this, because you will only reply with more abuse and “Lallahoose”. (What is Lallhoose?) You are determined to insult Mr Bidvai and everbody else, so you will please do it. WE are knowing you have no intelectual honesty.

Mukta Khanna.

Now that you wont let the matter rest,

What do you mean I won’t let the matter rest?

If the truth about beloved Paksitan is so bitter that you can’t stomach it, shoot the person bringing it to you. That seems to be the mujahid policy.

before I answer your questions, I want you to give me statistics from a credible and objective publication and not from the Bharat-Rakshak website.

Haven’t you said barely hours ago:

Any evidence. I have removed all conditions.

Do you have any credibility or objectivity?

Do you have any evidence that Bharat Rakshak Monitor analyses have ever been proved to be wrong or false? Post it!

Cheers,
RR

You are telling another lie, Mr Reddy

Which in itself is a lie, Khanna Mukta Nair.

Why don’t you try for just one day, ONE day, not to lie? Is it too difficult? Just keep silent. You would then not to have to utter a lie.

He gave very exact examples of numbers of deaths and methods of killings.

To which I precisely responded that it constitutes a statistical equivalence, not a moral equivalence.

It was you, instead of having intelectual honesty and guts to explain your claim

See. You are attributing all the characteristicis of your alter ego to me. Comrade Nair completely lacked backbone. I challenged him to elaborate on the respective causes the respective sides were fighting for, but he wouldn’t! He just wouldn’t!

I rather suspect that you and he believe that “intellectual honesty” means “Lalu Prasad Yadav”.

Do you have honesty now to tell why Gujrat was different from Baslan?

Do you have any honesty to tell me what are the “causes” the fighters in Baslan and the alleged fighters in Gujarat were advancing?

Even Ms Shanti’s original posting for this discussion, she said “I am sincerely against anyone who wantonly unleash destruction on innocents - be it Hindus or Muslims or Christians or atheists”, and then “I unequivocally condemn the acts - no ifs and buts.” But you?

Oh really. I am amused that you are dragging Shanti to your side now. Why couldn’t you produce Khanna Nair Mukta’s or Mujahid’s quote to the effect that he condemns Baslan massacre no ifs and buts? Have you and have Sudhakar Nair Khanna and Pra-non-fool Bidwai and Arundhati Roy done that? In fact, desperate to shift focus away from the Baslan massacre, desperate NOT to unequivocally condemn it, you gutless, dishonest “people” dragged Gujarat and the political “causes” in the picture.

In fact, I said:

If Islamic idea of Allah is that of an entity who does NOT endorse the harming and killing of innocent people for WHATEVER cause or reason, I assure you that I have immense respect for Him/Her/It.

Have you missed it while you were busy bursting a bloodvessel or two? Can’t commit yourself that Allah won’t recommend the killing of innocents for WHATEVER reason or cause?

Mr Bidwai’s article title was “IT Experts or Cyber-Colies”.

Dear Mukta begum, explain why he didn’t call it:

“ITES Experts or Cybercoolies?”

if he meant to call call-center workers cybercoolies.

Why is he so foul-mouthed and abusive that he has to call some other people “coolies”? Is he a character in the mould of teh Mukta Dilip Khanna Nairs?

WE are knowing you have no intelectual honesty

I said you to go see a shrink. Try it. You may feel better.

Cheers,
RR

RR, let me explain this to you again.
I had initially dropped the conditions because I wanted to see what you ‘Kill all Muslims’ type were thinking and reading. I did not question the stastics as I promised by dropping the condition.
Now if you start asking me questions, I will have to ask you to give me statistics from a credible website. If you had not asked me the questions, I would have not put the conditions back on again. It doesnt make sense that I drop the conditions and then you question me on facts from your loony website.
I put the condition and the burden is on you to prove the credibility and reputableness of this trash publication. The burden is not on me to negate the credibility of your sources. I am the one who put the conditions of credibility and not you. This is Debate 101.

:angry:

:smartass:

Mukta (and AM, for that matter)—

Why are you getting into this with RR? He thrives on twisting stuff. (And, weakly, on making subtle fun of your grammar).

When actually put on the line, what does he quote to us? An article from Bharat Rakshak! Wow! A collection of more self-satisfied fellows, who seem to actually believe what transpires on their site is being listened to in the highest corridors of Indian power, would be hard to find.

Even Varsha Bhosle, otherwise a hero to that site, once commented: A little digging left me fascinated by their self-importance: They actually believe that Vir Sanghvi has nothing better to do than read their forum to pick up arguments for his column! Amazing. If such is the intellect and integrity of members belonging to a defence website, boy, are we in trouble.

But even then, we go to this article, and what do we find it called? “Ethnic Cleansing in Pakistan during Partition.” Not in the 57 years since, but during Partition.

But of course, people who ask for evidence of such cleansing in those 57 years must be Pakis!

RR has nothing to back up his assertions, Mukta. He knows it. That is why he raves like he does. That’s why he must fool himself into thinking all his critics are one big figment of the imagination. Let’s really try ignoring him — that reduces him to feeling sorry for himself and complaining.

Sudhakar.

I will have to ask you to give me statistics from a credible website.

You have to first prove that Bharat Rakshak Monitor content is not credible. Making wild allegations about that site because you’ve painted yourself into a corner doesn’t cut it.

Looky here. I know your kind. Which is why I stalled posting the evidence till you agreed to be honest enough not to shift goalposts. But obviously, I reckoned without your warrior-class ethics. :(

Never mind. Just prove that BM Monitor is not credible. Hey, I’m not even asking you to prove that article wrong — that would be too much for you; but judging by your appraoch, I’ll have to ask you that too very soon.

Cheers,
RR

Red salutes, Khanna Mukta Nair Sudhakar,

When actually put on the line, what does he quote to us? An article from Bharat Rakshak!

Where did you learn logic from? Is it in a Marxist seminary? Or a jihadi madarsa? Wherever you learned it from, it’s obvious that it’s all screwed up. So let me teach you some elementary logic.

If you pretend to refute a fact by pretending to ridicule the source that the fact came from, you wouldn’t have proved anything. You have to show that the fact is not a fact. Failing which, you may at least show that the source has in the past peddled non-facts, and hence, by weak induction, claim that the fact under question is also disputable.

But such logical reasoning would tax your brains, no?

But even then, we go to this article, and what do we find it called? “Ethnic Cleansing in Pakistan during Partition.” Not in the 57 years since, but during Partition

So? An ethnic cleansing of Muslims has not happened this side of the border during the SAME partition after all.

You seem to be speaking in riddles, Moraluddin. Do you actually want to give credit to the Pakistanis that they ethnically cleansed 99% of the Hindu-Sikh population in ONE go, and then have been magnanimous enough not to cleanse the remaining 1%? Consider also giving them credit for letting a few thousand Pandits to remain in the valley, comrade. I guess the whole world gotta be grateul to the Pakis for their infinte compassion and respect for minority rights. Would any nation in the world do what the Pakis did: eliminate the HIndus and Sikhs ONLY during the partition and then NOT eliminate them again?

But of course, people who ask for evidence of such cleansing in those 57 years must be Pakis!

They definitely seem to me to be having smaller brains than even those Pakis, for who will you ethincally cleanse when there’s hardlly anybody there to cleanse?

RR has nothing to back up his assertions, Mukta.

No! Mukta Dilip Khanna Vengsarkar doesn’t believe it! You gotta work hard to persuade her that she has the logic and I don’t.

Say, Nair Sudhakar Khanna Mukta, when you recently celebrated your 13th birthday — in a madarsa perhaps — were there lots of balloons and stuff? Did you and pals have a jolly good time? Hope you had.

Cheers,
RR

Lallahoos Madam Mukta,

You accused me of not doing what Shanti did, condemn massacre s with no ifs and buts.

Are you gonna condemn Mujahid who asked what was the big deal in killing kids?

Are you gonna condemn Sudhkar Khanna Dilip Nair and Dilip Nair Khanna Sudhakar, both of who have brought in LOTS of ifs and butts, such as political “causes” , Chechen “independence”, the alleged Russion atrocities on Chechens etc?

Do it, pronto. I command you!

Allright. I request you. ;)

Cheers,
RR

Comrade Sudhkar Khanna Mukta Nair Dilip, bad news for ya.

I was looking around and found this interesting bit of info. There remained some Jews in postwar Germany. So even Hitler allowed some Jews to live, after all!

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005687

What does this mean? It means that the Pakistanis’ achievement is not so unique! Hitler’s Germany beat them to it!

Sorry for being the bearer of bad news.

Cheers,
RR

“You accused me of not doing what Shanti did, condemn massacre s with no ifs and buts.”

You are lieing again. It is not surprising at all.

I asked you, “Do you have honesty now to tell why Gujrat was different from Baslan?” Answer is No, you do NOT have honesty. I knew already. Because actually you do NOT see difference and you cannot admit.

I am uninterested in condemning or not. You don’t want to condemn somthing, it is okay for me. You want to, it is okay for me. Murdered kids in Baslan or Gujarat is not becoming alive because you or Shanti or me condemned.

Mukta Khanna.

You accused me of not doing what Shanti did, condemn massacre s with no ifs and buts.”

You are lieing again. It is not surprising at all.

Hello. Am I speaking to a parrot that knows only one line: “you are lying”, and misspells it too the parrtot-way?

Who’s the liar?

Who’s the one that said:

Even Ms Shanti’s original posting for this discussion, she said “I am sincerely against anyone who wantonly unleash destruction on innocents - be it Hindus or Muslims or Christians or atheists”, and then “I unequivocally condemn the acts - no ifs and buts.” But you?

I asked you, “Do you have honesty now to tell why Gujrat was different from Baslan?”

And I asked you: do you have the backbone to proceed with the “causes” and “fighters” reasoning of Beslan vs Godhra?

No, you don’t have. You chickened out, once you realized where it will lead you to.

And you who start lecturing me that I shoud do what Shanti did: do you have the honesty and courage both combined, to practice thta which you yourself preach? No, you don’t. When asked to condemn Mujahid for his whats-the-big-deal-in-killing-kids logic, and Sudhakar Nair Dilip Khanna and Khanna Dilp Nair Sudhakar for the lots of ifs and buts “they” introduced: gujarat, political “causes”, chechen “independence”, bush “policies” , putin “policies”, “context”, “history”, russian “atrocities” — when asked to do this, what do you do? You do what you’ve always done, chicken out quite dishonestly, citing a new “principle”:

I am uninterested in condemning or not. You don’t want to condemn somthing, it is okay for me.

You discovered that only when you had to swallow your bitter medicine eh?

I mean, look at the ridiculousness of it all. Mujahid and you Khanna Nairs have tried you damndest best — and succeeded — to shift the attention away from Shanti’s original topic, Beslan, with a whole lot of spurious, extraneous arguments. And you turn around start accusing me of not doing enough condemnation!

I mean, doesn’t it grate on your conscience that you are on the side of people who argue: what’s the big deal in killing kids? Is tacitly approving Mujahid’s argument your way of condemning Beslan?

Let us have this clarified up: is it your argument also that people gotta be killed anyway, so what’s the big deal in killing kids?

Murdered kids in Baslan or Gujarat is not becoming alive because you or Shanti or me condemned.

Did this wisdom dawn on you only after you picked fault with me that I didn’t, allegedly, emulate Shanti?

Cheers,
RR

rr,
I am glad we agree now that there has been no ETHNIC CLEANSING of Hindus since modern Pakistan was created.

I am glad we agree now that there has been no ETHNIC CLEANSING of Hindus since modern Pakistan was created

Which means that defending beloved Pakistan too much has robbed you of your comprehension skills, warrior-miyan. Read that document I posted. It talks about ethnic cleansing IN PAKISTAN. Not in Burkina Faso.

By the way, do you wanna give credit to the Pakis that they didn’t kill off 1% of Hindu-Sikh population? Do you think, given your whats-the-big-deal-in-killing-kids logic, the Pakis have been way too kind to the Hindus and Sikhs?

Cheers,
RR

RR,
You will probably make a good career in taking things out of context and then running away with it.
I said that because you were ignoring the Chechnyan dead. My point was that just because the Chechnyans killed Russian children, does not mean that its any worse than Russians killing 105,000 Chechnyans. Stop taking things out of context.
Pakistan was created in 1947. Pakistan cannot be help responsible for what happened between 1941 and 1947 in provinces which are now in Pakistan. You are blaming an ‘entity’ which did not even exist at the times your alleged atrocities occured.

You are blaming an ‘entity’ which did not even exist at the times your alleged atrocities occured.

Nonsense. The ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs began after Pakistan was created, not before.

Actually, let me correct myself: Pakistan effected a genocide of Hindus and attempted an ethnic cleansing AFTER 1947 too.

Cheers,
RR

KXB:

> However, to be so naïve as to believe marriage
> between Indians and Pakistanis will automatically
> lead to peace in South Asia is reckless.

Naïve or not, I don’t believe marriage by itself will lead to peace in S Asia. But I do believe marriage can help to spread some degree of understanding. There’s so much hostility now that, as far as I’m concerned, anything — ANYTHING — that will chip away at that hostility is worth encouraging. That’s what I meant.

> It takes leadership – which Pakistan is sorely
> lacking.

Fair enough.

Do you think India has leadership, ever did have it? Apart for the current incumbent, for whom I have a lot of respect, who was the last PM who had any integrity? Possibly Morarji, except he tended to be a self-righteous twit. Nehru, really.

> it sure seems that plenty of Indian Muslims root of
> the Pakistani cricket team

Isn’t it amazing? I live here in Bombay, and have done so for most of my life, and have also lived in Hyderabad, Delhi, Rajasthan, Madras, and have travelled widely in India, including any number of Muslim dominated areas — and I’ve never seen this happen. Yet this is cited over and over again. Not that it doesn’t happen (I know of times that it has), except I have to wonder, if you in NYC (right?) tell me that “plenty of Indian Muslims” do this, how come I’ve never once seen it happen?

> Separate laws do not convince other Indians that
> the Muslim population wants to be treated like any
> other group.

I think anyone who brings up the personal laws needs to go look at them and try to understand what they are. May I point you to this article I wrote on the subject? It might give you a hint of the impossible tangle our personal laws are, how difficult it is to extract a common code, and how the claim that they “favour” one faith is an absurd one. Yet making that claim over and over seems to me to be the perfect recipe to ensuring we never get a common code.

> My living in the US has taught me that Muslims can