Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anees Jilani's column.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Anees Jilani's column.

    Since the discussions in this forum are often on this theme, i thought it would be relevent. And again, i could not have said it better.
    http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/apr20...00/oped/o2.htm

    #2
    She seems like another typical apologist. Yes, respect of religion is enjoined in Islam--it does not mean that we lose our own religious identity to please Tony Blair, Bill clinton and vajpayee.

    Vajpayee is now crying over the Babri Masjid? (Crocodile tears)
    A politician will say anything to stay in power but it is ACTIONS that matter. Why is his government re-writing the history bookss then, trying to eliminate any trace of the Muslim contribution to India's glorious past?
    Why did Advani/Thackeray (?) say, when Fire was initially banned, that if the characters had been Muslims it would've been okay? Why are all the BJP leaders also life long members of the RSS etc.

    The example of the woman who married a Hindu and he let her retain her religion--in Islam that is NOT a valid marriage; that lady is now an infidel (according to the Qur'an itself). Sorry, that kind of samjhota is not allowed and we do not want it.

    If Miss Anees is so inspired by it,an if Islam is so bad, perhaps she can convert to Hinduism and marry a rich Hindu hunh? I'm sure many Hindus in india wouldn't mind a bit of pakistani 'Muslim' 'yoni' for a change...they will probably brag about it.

    Yet they are actively trying to stop dalits and others from being converted away from hinduism often by threats of violence...

    yet ms anees is so thrilled that a 'muslim' lady married a hindu!

    No wonder pakistan is in such a pathetic condition if these are the views of our so called 'elite'.

    :anger:

    Comment


      #3
      missing the whole point as usual. incident she has narrated is that of a pakistani who abandoned his wife for none of her fault and a broad minded person who accepted her. stigma associated with rape and things like is no different in either communities. marrying a person is not same a getting a muslim 'yoni' for bragging around as u put it. it is also love and respect. while codemning the woman for marrying person of different faith, u are overlooking behaviour of her husband in the present example.
      again, that example is very small part of what she is saying.

      [This message has been edited by ZZ (edited April 04, 2000).]

      Comment


        #4
        What this half-litertate woman argues is only half right. It is obviously true that most Hindu's are not the devil, and that not all Muslims are saints. BUT SHE SHOULD HAVE SAID WAS THAT SOME HINDU'S ARE DEVILS, AND SOME'FUNEMENTALIST' MUSLIMS ARE GOOD PEOPLE.

        Then she should have pointed out the % of minorities in both countries, and their actual numbers. In Pakistan minorities make up about 3.5% of the population, about 5 million people - 2.25 million Christians, 2.25 million Hindus' and 0.5 million others.

        In India minorities make up 20% of the population, some 200 million people ! - 140 million Muslims ! (14%), 25 million Christians ! (2.5%), 20.0 million Sikhs (2.0%) and 10 million Buddjists (1.0%) and 5 million others (Jains, Parsees, and Jews etc).

        There is now way that India can impose a Hindu theocracy against the wishes of 200 million people !. It is far easier to impose/implement an Islamic state in Pakistan because there are only 5 million or so strong minorities.

        Anees Jilani should out her argument into the proper stastical context, instead od taking a blindly anti- Pakistani line. Also she is clearly wrong when she says that minorities have no share in the governance of Pakistan. There have been prominent Christians in the military, and the superior judiciary - Chief Justice Cornelius in the 1960's - who was a fierce supporter of Sharia law in Pakistan. AND RECENTLY MUSHARRAF APPOINTED THE HINDU-SINDHI JUDGE RANA BAGHWAS TO THE SUPREME COURT.

        Maybe Anees Jilani would like to point out that the avearge per capita of muslims in India is about half that of the average Indian...

        Comment


          #5
          [QUOTE]Originally posted by kmailik:
          What this half-litertate woman argues is only half right. It is obviously true that most Hindu's are not the devil, and that not all Muslims are saints. BUT SHE SHOULD HAVE SAID WAS THAT SOME HINDU'S ARE DEVILS, AND SOME'FUNEMENTALIST' MUSLIMS ARE GOOD PEOPLE.

          What this fully literate person wants to say is that the glass is not half empty it is half full. O.K. agreed.

          Then she should have pointed out the % of minorities in both countries, and their actual numbers. In Pakistan minorities make up about 3.5% of the population;.....
          In India minorities make up 20% of the population, some 200 million people ! - 140 million Muslims ! (14%), 25 million Christians ! (2.5%), 20.0 million Sikhs (2.0%) and 10 million Buddjists (1.0%) and 5 million others (Jains, Parsees, and Jews etc).


          My dear you now think about it, why is it so. In which country, the percentage of minority is increasing and in which country it is decreasing (since independence). Which country was made specifically for one religion only.

          There is now way that India can impose a Hindu theocracy against the wishes of 200 million people !. It is far easier to impose/implement an Islamic state in Pakistan because there are only 5 million or so strong minorities.

          So because the number of minority is lower doesn't mean you have to impose an Islamic law over them. And you think India cannot do it because it has a large number of minority, let me tell you it is the intention to harass minorities and not their number which matters. There are ways in which the minorities can be reduced to a certain number in say 50 years time, as was done in Pakistan.

          Anees Jilani should out her argument into the proper stastical context, instead od taking a blindly anti- Pakistani line.

          Statistics does not have to do anything in this article. In fact I wonder how you put the onus on to the statistcis only.

          Also she is clearly wrong when she says that minorities have no share in the governance of Pakistan.

          It should have been almost not share (after a little exaggeration).

          Maybe Anees Jilani would like to point out that the avearge per capita of muslims in India is about half that of the average Indian...

          I am eager to know the per capita of average hindu or christian in Pakistan.
          One reason for this low per capita is that a large chunk of muslims in India are those who have converted, and as you and your other friends have pointed out many times it is mostly the low and poor class of hindus that are converting to Islam (so that adds to the statistics). In any case do a study of Hindus in Pakistan and then we will discuss this further.

          Comment


            #6
            The % of minorities in Pakistan has remained fairly static since 1950, between 3.5 to 5.0%.

            As for increasing minorities in India - fact Muslims, Sikhs and Catholics have a far higher birth rate than Hindu's. The birth rate among Hindu's is 1.5% per annum, and Muslims it is 3.2%.

            And as minorities increase in India so does the persecution - Muslims in Kashmir and all over India, Sikhs in Punjab and Delhi, Christians in Nagaland, Mizoram and Gujarat, and Buddhists in Ldakh and Arunchal Pradesh etc etc etc.

            Comment


              #7
              Dhir, as for Pakistani Hindu's - look at the web page below and see for yourself the love, devotion and loyalty they feel towards Pakistan:-
              http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/7295/

              Comment


                #8
                I am not bothered about defending the article since it is not written by me.

                Some minor points

                Originally posted by kmailik:
                The % of minorities in Pakistan has remained fairly static since 1950, between 3.5 to 5.0%.

                Wah.. 3.5% to 5% is static. spread of 40% in statistics.

                Actually it is less than 3% now.

                And as minorities increase in India so does the persecution - Muslims in Kashmir and all over India, Sikhs in Punjab and Delhi, Christians in Nagaland, Mizoram and Gujarat, and Buddhists in Ldakh and Arunchal Pradesh etc etc etc.

                Just for ur info there are no buddhists in Arunachal. Before alleging persecution, make sure they exist.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Buddhists in Arunachal ???!!
                  Nagaland has been one state where people come out in record numbers to vote (70-90% more than that of regular India). The seperatist groups had declared a ceasefire with the Nagaland government 2 years ago....now these tribal groups are fighting against each other. Their activities include holding people hostage and asking for ransom -- hardly activities of freedom fighters now, are they. Mizoram recently became one of the first states in India to become 100% litterate (before Kerela)....so they are not doing as bad as you guys love to project -- these things are just not publicised enough. These are areas about which not much is known in Pakistan so you should first get your facts right (in case you're interested). Just don't use those standard figures that Pakistanis use for propoganda -- 250000 Sikhs killed in Punjab, 150000 Christians killed in Nagaland, 70000 Muslims killed............

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by dhir:

                    My dear you now think about it, why is it so. In which country, the percentage of minority is increasing and in which country it is decreasing (since independence). Which country was made specifically for one religion only

                    Percentage of minority...hmm...ok, I'll get back to it a lil later. But for the moment, you don't have enlighten us about which country was mad for wat. Religion was the base for the question of a separete country, Pakistan is NOT the peoples' republic but Islamic Republic, mind that.

                    So because the number of minority is lower doesn't mean you have to impose an Islamic law over them. And you think India cannot do it because it has a large number of minority, let me tell you it is the intention to harass minorities and not their number which matters. There are ways in which the minorities can be reduced to a certain number in say 50 years time, as was done in Pakistan

                    Ok, given ur state of ignorance, I won't take ur comments much seriously, but just to set the records correct, civil/criminal laws are applicable equally to both sides in Pakistan, its the personal family laws where minorities are treated according to their religious convictions and NOT according to Islamic laws, so where do u see "imposition of Islamic laws" dear ignorant??

                    Statistics does not have to do anything in this article. In fact I wonder how you put the onus on to the statistcis only.

                    Now that takes the cake! Going back to ur opening remarks, u used the percentage indicator to make a silly point but now when it gets under ur pants, u seemed to be running away from statistics!, makeup ur mind dude


                    Also she is clearly wrong when she says that minorities have no share in the governance of Pakistan.

                    It should have been almost not share (after a little exaggeration).

                    Not just lil exaggeration, but going over the board. Atleast no minority group is being oppressed, raped & massacred in Pakistan.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Pakistan became Islamic republic only in 71. Actually when Pakistan started, things were not that bad. Jinnah's ministry had even Hindu law minister and Ahamdies were at prominent position. After Jinnah's death, things became more and more communal and , for example this law minister had to come to India. Ahamadies were declared non-muslim long after that.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by KK:
                        [b]Originally posted by dhir:

                        Percentage of minority...hmm...ok, I'll get back to it a lil later. But for the moment, you don't have enlighten us about which country was mad for wat. Religion was the base for the question of a separete country, Pakistan is NOT the peoples' republic but Islamic Republic, mind that.

                        That proves my first point: you have no right to talk of % of minority as you have made sure that none survives in your Islamic nation, that gives us reason to say 'Look who is talking, whose country is based solely on one religion, and not human values', alas.

                        Ok, given ur state of ignorance, I won't take ur comments much seriously, but just to set the records correct, civil/criminal laws are applicable equally to both sides in Pakistan, its the personal family laws where minorities are treated according to their religious convictions and NOT according to Islamic laws, so where do u see "imposition of Islamic laws" dear ignorant??

                        That, in fact, proves you ignorant about Indian judicial system. So next time you point out something about your religion in India keep in mind your statement that only personal family laws are to be devised on the base of religion. I will point it out to you if you deflect from this statement.

                        Now that takes the cake! Going back to ur opening remarks, u used the percentage indicator to make a silly point but now when it gets under ur pants, u seemed to be running away from statistics!, makeup ur mind dude

                        Hi, Hi, Hi..........Ha, ha ha,,,ho ho ho.....
                        The cake is all yours. Please go back to the post and see who first tried to prove the point giving statistics. I only wanted to convey that statistics is not the real measure of social justice and can easily be played with. Please point out exactly where did I tried to prove my point giving statistics only, wasn't I replying to your statistical post.

                        Not just lil exaggeration, but going over the board. Atleast no minority group is being oppressed, raped & massacred in Pakistan.
                        If I am not wrong, we were talking about share in governance. So you accept defeat on that account.
                        And b.t.w tell me how many minority groups in Pakistan are killing majority purely on the basis of religion, it is happening in Kashmir. Now tell me how many muslims in an year are being raped or killed or massacred in say, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Andhra Pradesh. Why do you think it is only done in Kashmir, of course it can't be religious consideration. If the case be so, we would not have allowed so many muslims to stay back in India in the first place. Now do I hear some propaganda machine working full time in Pakistan. Go on, don't be shy.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          There are in fact LARGE buddhist minorities in all of India's northern states - 40% of Arunchal Pradesh's population in fact.

                          Yes indeed how people use stastics to please themselves. Fact - minorities have been rising in EVERY western country in the last 50 years i.e. Muslims were only 1% of the population of France in 1945, and in 1995 the French government estimated there were 5 million muslims in France - 8% of the populatiON, AND RISING VERY FAST - WHY -BECAUSE OF IMMIGRATION, HIGH BIRTH RATE, AN ALMOST ZERO BIRTH RATE AMONG FRENCH PEOPLE ETC.

                          Also, for people who claim that minorities are rising in India because of conversions from low-caste Hindu's. MAYBE THEY WOULD LIKE TO INFORM OF US OF THE CASTE-BASED HINDU THEOLOGY i.e. The Hindu belief in Hell is that High-caste Hindu sinners will be punished by being reincarnated as low-caste/untouchable Hindu's 1 and low-caste/untouchables sinners will be reincarnated as animals!! WHAT A DOG OF A RELIGION !!

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by kmailik:
                            Dhir, as for Pakistani Hindu's - look at the web page below and see for yourself the love, devotion and loyalty they feel towards Pakistan:-
                            http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/7295/
                            Wow, I am glad that Pakistani Hindus feel attached to their country and don't do anything anti-national just because they happen to be another religion. Hope this message spreads all over the world.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              not 40% in any state, perhaps sikkim.. few in Assam, Tripura.

                              u r taking dhir's post out of context.. he was just arguing that assuming what u said is true this could be an explanation.

                              however the true reason is that the rich and educated muslims migrated to pakistan and ended up getting lucrative jobs which were emptied by fleeing Hindu population.. that left mostly uneducated and poor muslims in India.

                              In fact the movement for pakistan was launched precisely for this reason. in 1857 more then 50% jobs went to Muslims and later, i think by 1935, it reduced to 35%, still more than population share, but them Muslims wanted to fix the quota at 50%. This was because they could not compete. And this was during British regime.

                              there is caste system among muslims in india and syed and stuff like do not marry julahas.

                              The basis of Pakistan ideology was these job hunting babus. It did not have roots , for example in peasants or labourers. It explains why land reforms did not happen in Pakistan.

                              [This message has been edited by ZZ (edited April 06, 2000).]

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X