Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hindu Interest & Muslim Rights

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

    Hindu Interest & Muslim Rights






    HINDU MUSLAMAN BYE BYE!
    Part 1


    Now that I have your attention, lets discuss the culture of persuasion
    that we in South Asia, home to nearly half of humanity, have failed to
    understand. The Hindu Musalman clash is due to the tension between two
    different ideological systems. No one can deny that Indian thought has
    had perhaps the greatest space and opportunity in time to evolve. What
    we can deny however is that it has not evolved in the right direction,
    after all sometimes things become extinct. On the other hand it’s not
    too cumbersome to project life into Pakistani philosophy, it conjures up
    the mind of consciousness and roots its reason in logic, much like the
    western perceptions. Yet the west invariably tends toward infinite
    thought of Hinduism, the symbolic rite, the inexplicable calmness and
    the meditative idle time is all too tempting for those who are at
    crossroads of morality. Choosing the lesser path presents the best
    illusion, intoxicating the amputated soul, giving it just what it needs.
    Sips of spiritual bliss, a mirage cum oasis that only time can determine
    by its gentle touch. But what are we supposed to do with these
    thoughtless creatures in the meantime? We after all have to live under
    the same sun. We share somewhat similar interests and our masses too
    could be effectively isolated form the rational bounds. Kashmir: our
    greatest collective consciousness and their greatest ego matter…when
    will it all come to an end?


    Before we venture into discovering the differences in inner dialogue of
    Musalmans and Hindus its imperative we see the end first. The day the
    dawn when we can learn to co-exist in peace is a must see for anyone who
    wants to make the world a better place. The day the dawn when Pakistanis
    can share without feeling overwhelmed by numerals and recessive by
    dominance of power. The day the dawn when there is no status struggle
    but a subtle let-live attitude. I do not wish to forget the flowers at
    my feet as I dream for the stars because I know that Hindus will perhaps
    never respect the living testament that Pakistanis are happy to be
    Pakistanis and the simple observation that we ARE, is quiet a task for
    them Therefore I have not mentioned “respect”, I have simply dreamed for
    a the Day the dawn when we can let morality guide our actions instead of
    self-interest. This morality is simple, its unambiguous it is not
    contradictory and it is not antagonist to another interest party. If we
    can only figure out who determines the morality of choices available, we
    can solve half the problem, and so this is what the rest of my words
    will attempt to figure out. Weather Hindu thought ever factors in at all
    in determining our “bhai-bhai-batwara” of the shared items.


    I am making two obvious assumptions: that all Hindus think alike and
    conversely that all Pakistanis think, and second that you will be able
    to pick out the bias in this write-up and understand the rationality
    behind it. You owe Pakistanis like me the latter favor because we have
    respect for your religion and we have practiced your ancient yoga and
    its various branches, and that we have read Deepak Choopra and that we
    have watched Mahabharat and that we have our families split right
    through the center between Indians and Pakistanis and we make our
    conclusions keeping the abovementioned data in our mind. After all, I am
    making this argument on the same line that Gandhi leaned on when he
    claimed Muslim political rights should be insured in united India
    because he has read the Quran.6


    A third not so obvious conclusion is that the concept of communalism
    deals with sectarian devotion to either Hinduism or Islam. Although from
    the 1940’s in South Asia it quite clearly included the two distinct
    groups, but Mr. Nehru, plagued by the Indian thought concluded that the
    minorities of India hide behind the banner of religious community but
    are essentially concerned with Political patronage.1


    The first deficiency in Indian nourishment of thought is the inability
    to consider all facts. Context only applies to the visions of the Indian
    laying down the opinion. Mr. Jawaharlal missed out the reason to why a
    minority in India would feel the need to hang on to a “narrow” based
    communalism, if at all they did. Narrow: pushed against the wall by
    Hindus. In order to comprehend the simultaneous divergence of thoughts
    in these two groups, there would be no better study than that of the
    pre-partition scenario. Therein we can seek to find out weather the
    Indian claim that was prevalent then and even today stood any ground.
    The conclusion that the partition was the product of vested interests on
    the part of Muslim leaders, especially Jinnah, is the offspring of the
    thought that there was tranquility between Hindus and Musalmans in the
    pre-partition time. The entire family of thought is flawed.


    When independence from Britain was imminent, the crusade for
    independence was alongside the Muslim India’s desire to create a state
    free of Hindu domination. Note that the following things were food for
    the sacred desire of Muslims.
    · Arya Samaj and Mahasabha shouting provocative slogans creating intense
    bitterness among the Muslims 2
    · Attempt to use Hindi as nation unifier.
    · Congress Flag and Anthem that were an emblem of Hindu symbols despite
    the claim that Congress is a secular body encompassing the proper
    representation of Muslims.
    · Education policies requiring school children to pay homage to Ghandi’s
    portrait.3
    · Although Gandhi’s claim of the British perusing a policy of divide and
    rule being the CAUSE of communal tensions can be defended, it is
    impossible to defend the fact that British policy did indeed FURTHER the
    communal division that existed long before. Reforms that facilitated
    Muslim down-play such as the India Act of 1935 proved that the British
    Legislative policy, while ostensibly aimed at protecting minority
    rights, tended to accentuate sectarian allegiances.4
    · The failure of Congress to acknowledge the League’s various concerns
    or its existence was perhaps the prime cause of Pakistan’s creation.7


    These are a few of the many pus-ridden grievances by Muslims, regarding
    the friction stemming from the various powerful and all-encompassing
    invasions from Arabs around the 7th century. Indian leaders and masses
    chose to adhere to a view quiet contradictory to the truth, perhaps
    because Indian thought does not value truth at all. Truth is quiet
    relative to them. Should I dare generalize further and classify the
    Hindu thought as the Orient and the Muslim or western mind as Occident,
    we would arrive at the following differences.


    · The Quran and most Islamic teaching aim to conquer the forces of
    nature. In fact Dr. Abdul Wadood’s conclusion after analyzing the
    parallel between the Quran and Science is that forces of nature is what
    the Quran means with reference to angels. Whereas the Hindu mind seeks
    harmony with nature.
    · There is great value placed on cold logic (natural law) and efficiency
    in the mind of Muslim India. Propriety, ritual, form and the dragging in
    of religious philosophies such as satyagraha and ahimsa are very central
    in making a movement for the Hindus.
    · The orient is structured on collectivism focusing greatly on one’s
    tribe, clan and caste, while the occident places more value on
    maximizing personal performance and on individualism.
    · There is more of an Aristotelian approach that pleases the occident:
    an either-or attitude and things are absolute measured by a specific
    yardstick of right and wrong. Easterners generally seem to be able to
    believe that something can be good and bad, right and wrong or black and
    white.5
    · The Hindu mind is mystical and meditative and the Muslim adventurous
    and aggressive.5
    · Muslims have a very progressive concept of the straight and inclined
    path to God (Siratul-Mustaqeem), whereas the Hindu has this circular
    concept of life, where one eventually ends up where one begins,
    recycling and reincarnating.


    There has always been an attempt by Hindus and ignorant Muslims
    successfully blinded by Hindu thought that there was little
    significantly problematic between Hindu Muslim interaction. If there was
    any awareness they pretended so well, perhaps even they couldn’t tell
    the difference. It was conveniently ignored:-
    · That Hindu Muslim unity was a necessary prerequisite for the struggle
    of Indipendence.8
    · That persistent advocacy for minority rights in a constitutional
    manner is a viable option since it’s not only a right of the minority
    but a duty of the Hindus.
    · That non-cooperation and civil disobedience would produce chaos, as
    history thereafter proves vindication of.
    · That Hindus and Muslims are two major nations within the subcontinent.
    Ironically when Gandhi was asked what is the thing that “leads us to do
    what we do”, answered, “purely religious!…” 9
    · That “reconstituting existing provinces into homogeneous independent
    zones” was more feasible than appealing to emotions by use of terms such
    as, “vivisection of India” and “cutting the baby into two halves” 10
    · That nationality is not retained when one changes faith in the
    subcontinent then because a convert was branded a “malechha” or
    untouchable and successfully isolated in all spheres of life by Hindus.
    · That the conversion occurred many thousands of years ago, and hence
    presented sufficient time for the proliferation of divided cultural
    embedding, weakening the argument that implied the somewhat recent
    conversion causes the retaining of similarity between the two faiths.
    · That there is a great contrast between Urdu’s Arabic roots and Hindi’s
    Sanskrit origin.
    · That though Muslims may sometimes have Hindu surnames, their first
    names clearly evidence of two distinct nations.
    · That “…there was no sympathetic understanding of each other’s religion
    and culture, no give and take in a real sense, and no renaissance.
    Whatever mutual impact there was during the centuries of contact of the
    two civilizations was due to the accident of their living together in
    the same land rather than to any enthusiasm on their part to learn from
    each other for their mutual benefit.” 11
    · The Pakistan proposal, when there was clear understanding of what it
    meant.


    There is little one can do when arguing with a group who claims to be
    guided by “inner voices”. There is a natural propelling force that
    causes the other to turn to more desperate measures. Hindus are a very
    wise lot though. They have to be given credit for picking on the most
    disorganized of all, the Muslims; the ones who find it impossible to
    agree on any given issue. I find it similar to the Kansas Evolution
    debate a few months ago in the US. The Scientists were left speechless
    in a debate with the Creationists who based their argument on a Divine
    undisputed scripture.


    The slippery slope fallacy was a lubricant for Hindu fears. The fear
    reigned over the rationality of having a separate homeland for the “two
    major communities”. Gandhi aptly projected the Hindu paranoia, when he
    said. “The consequences of accepting such a preposition are dangerous in
    the extreme. Once the principle is admitted, there would be no limit to
    claims for cutting up India into numerous divisions which would spell
    Indian’s ruin.”12


    Isn’t it ironic that the abovementioned self-preservation strategy that
    Hindus perused back then to deny the Muslims the right of
    self-determination as a nation but considered them a territorial unit,
    is the same self-preservation strategy that is perused today to count
    Kashmir’s right of self-determination as a nation instead of considering
    them as a territorial unit?


    Truth is that Hindus use the banner of democracy and secularism as a
    tool for paving the path to securing Hindu interests, and Muslims fight
    to secure Muslim interests based on the guarantees and trust of the fair
    play of the other party’s governance. Its what has fooled us for ages
    now and yet we continue to be fooled. The victim is a greater sinner
    than the oppressor and the unjust one. So instead of complaining no one
    appreciates our colors and hues, simply stop being a doormat for the
    Hindus, recognize their minds, and do what needs to be done…NOW!


    Works Cited:


    1. Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India (New York: John Day, 1946),
    p. 386.
    2. G. Allana (ed.), Pakistan Movement, pp. 165-66
    3. B. R. Nanda, Mahatma Gandhi; A Biography (London: George Allen and
    Unwin, 1958), p. 409
    4. Allen Hayes, Gandhi vs. Jinnah (Columbia: T.K Mukherjee, 1980), p. 14
    5. Ibid., p.21
    6. G. Allana (ed.), Pakistan Movement, p. 181
    7. Penderel Moon, Divide and Quit (Berkley: University of California
    Press, 1962), p. 15.
    8. Khalid B. Sayeed, “The Personality of Jinnah and His Political
    Strategy, “The Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives, 1935-1947,
    ed. Cyril Henry Philips And Mary Doreen Wainwright (London: Allen and
    Unwin,1970), p. 277.
    9. The full text of Gandhi’s letter, article and Jinnah’s reply can be
    found in M.K Gandhi, Communal University, pp. 214-15.
    10. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Some Recent Speeches and Writings of Mr.
    Jinnah, ed. Jamil-ud-din Ahmad (Lahore: Sk.Muhammad Ashraf, 1946), p.
    189.
    11. Srivastava, Medieval Indian Culture, p.256.
    12. M. K. Gandhi, To The Protagonists of Pakistan, p. 121.

    #2
    who is the author of above junk? and what is source from where u cut and pasted this rubbish?

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by ZZ:
      who is the author of above junk? and what is source from where u cut and pasted this rubbish?
      Obviously it is written by the author ,sanamuntill stated otherwise.

      it doesnt claim as fact or statistics that has to be verified except for the books given as reference.Obviously you think otherwise ,is understandable & you can post your opinion fresh or rebuttal to this conclusion.



      ------------------


      barque(bijli) yoon akadti hai apne karname pe ke
      jaise phir naya hum aashiyaan bana nahi sakte

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Azad Munna:
        Obviously it is written by the author ,sanamuntill stated otherwise.
        irrespective of quality of content, i am yet to see a piece of coherent english by sanam yet. so rest assured that it is cut and paste.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by ZZ:
          irrespective of quality of content, i am yet to see a piece of coherent english by sanam yet. so rest assured that it is cut and paste.
          zz,
          I dunno whether or not its ghost written for sanam,but she seems to agree with the ideas in the write up.Why dont you comment on the assertions rather than the author ,.What difference it makes ,as long as we can discuss the observations & assertions.There are more than one view to even seemingly straight jacket case for you.

          Comment

          Working...
          X