Assam violence death toll rises to 21, shoot-at-sight order issued

[Bang Galore]

Sorry I dont agree with the above hypothesis that if religious difference had not been there, then automatically caste difference definitely would have taken its place. Your entire post is based on that single premise which I dont subscribe to. Secondly I am not a proponent of a political Hindu state which I think you are alluding to. India should have been a secular state but just PE should have happened so that we don't see the misuse of the word "secularism" as we see in India today. A relevant article link.

It is not to say that caste would not have been a factor, but one less conflicting factor is always better.

Empirically while I see education and urbanization gradually melting away the differences of caste, the reverse is actually happening in the case of religion.

A bit like expecting Pakistan to be a secular state. Secular for whom exactly? Not just caste but language would have been larger causes for friction. It is quite simply really. A Hindu now has multiple identities of language, caste & religion other than his nationality. Remove religion out of the mix & the other two gets accentuated. Do not underestimate the power of either. Hatred between castes still run quite high today. To imagine that the lower castes would have accepted upper caste domination (even if only perceived) or vice versa would be foolhardy. The story of linguistic divides are too well know to merit repetition here. All it takes for some Tamil chauvinists to start separation talk is a perceived disinterest(passive not active reason) of the rest of the country towards a cause that they feel strongly about. Who knows where your preference would have taken us? Pakistan took only a little under 25 years to break up. The idea of India was very tenuous at the time of independence not anywhere near as strong as it is now. We survived because we subscribed slowly to a larger identity & a greater moral idea, not the lowest common denominator.

 

[Bhairava]

..A bit like expecting Pakistan to be a secular state. Secular for whom exactly? Not just caste but language would have been larger causes for friction....

Again you seem to be saying that if not for one difference then that would have automatically added to the other two differences. Hey, its not a zero sum game. Why not the possibility where it does not add up ? I stand by my point, that PE would have been better for India back in '47. I may not optimistic as you are, but I frankly feel that the difference between the two communities is too big and too deep to find any common ground.

Also, for the sake of argument, you take Pakistan to prove a point...why not take the case of Israel, the only other state founded on the basis of religion ? Those Israelis came from all over the world from Germany, from Russia, from France,from US, from Gulf, from Armenia and even from India. Are they not living sucessfully against insurmountable odds ?

Does it not tell you something ? That all religions dont respond in the same way to a particular tonic ?

 

[Bang Galore]

Also, for the sake of argument, you take Pakistan to prove a point...why not take the case of Israel, the only other state founded on the basis of religion ? Those Israelis came from all over the world from Germany, from Russia, from France,from US, from Gulf, from Armenia and even from India. Are they not living sucessfully against insurmountable odds ?

Does it not tell you something ? That all religions dont respond in the same way to a particular tonic ?

Funny you should use Israel. Even though all Israelis are migrants to Israel (therefore no deep roots in a particular part unlike in India) & no segment has a majority, discrimination is still widespread. For years Indian jews were treated as second class citizens with the Rabbi's not even accepting that they were jews till their alien (read Indian) habits were wiped out & a sort of reconversion/purification done. Even today there is a huge fight between ultra orthodox jews & the others. This fight is both cultural (they sometimes spit on women in shorts or having uncovered hair) & political(more likely to believe that God gave them the west bank & Gaza & therefore opposed to settlement with the Palestinians). Israel is hardly the place you want to refer too.

 

[LaBong]

Err..not exactly.

Let me give you an example.

We read in our history books how Akbar was a great, secular, tolerant king. Sure he was, atleast in the later part of his life, and credit must be given for that. But how many history books tell us the fact that he ordered the massacre of 30,000 Rajput civilians, not including the women who committed jauhar, after Chittor fell ?

We read how Tipu the Tiger was a great patriot and secular hero who fought against the English...yes he fought against the British for his own kingdom...also how many text books tell about the depradations of the Tiger in Malabar and coastal Karnataka ?

This is what I call white-washing and this is what I say must be absent. Historians should not think and draw conclusions for people. They should just present the events and let the readers draw their own conclusions.

This is what I meant by unvarnished. And for some strange reason we Indians are afraid of facing upto the bloody history of our past and are intent on sweeping everything under the carpet thinking they will magically vanish. No it wont. Actually that reluctance shows we are still insecure and not confidant whether our nation will hold up if we were ever to face up to that.

You shouldn't judge historic events based on modern sensitivities, but historic events should be judged based on the norms of the time when they occurred. This is the reason why Cheghis is known as conqueror but not a mass murderer.

Akbar waged war against Rajput not because they were Hindus, but because they were a thorn in his rule. He did whatever it was possible to subjugate them, by killing them en masse, marrying Rajput princes and once they were subjugated he made them allies.

Same way he also killed many Pashtun tribals when they rebelled against him.

Here he played a conqueror and stayed loyal to his cause as a reigning prince of Mughal empire.

Would call Ashoka was not secular because he annihilated the whole Kalinga?

 

[Vinod2070]

You shouldn't judge historic events based on modern sensitivities, but historic events should be judged based on the norms of the time when they occurred. This is the reason why Cheghis is known as conqueror but not a mass murderer.

Akbar waged war against Rajput not because they were Hindus, but because they were a thorn in his rule. He did whatever it was possible to subjugate them, by killing them en masse, marrying Rajput princes and once they were subjugated he made them allies.

Same way he also killed many Pashtun tribals when they rebelled against him.

Here he played a conqueror and stayed loyal to his cause as a reigning prince of Mughal empire.

Would call Ashoka was not secular because he annihilated the whole Kalinga?

Not true.

He and the Mongols were called the scourge of God in the Islamic world. I am sure he is not a beloved figure in China as well.

The Mughals, having been of the same Tartar blood (from Timur) were savages but not as savage as at the time of Chengiz.

In China, Persia and much of Central Asia, they wiped out complete populations the effect of which are still there today.

No reason for us to justify these acts.

 

[Bang Galore]

Not true.

He and the Mongols were called the scourge of God in the Islamic world. I am sure he is not a beloved figure in China as well.

The Mughals, having been of the same Tartar blood (from Timur) were savages but not as savage as at the time of Chengiz.

In China, Persia and much of Central Asia, they wiped out complete populations the effect of which are still there today.

No reason for us to justify these acts.

Funny isn't it that another common bogeyman for some, Alauddin Khilji (of Rani Padmini fame)was ruler whose generals crushed the Mongols repeatedly preventing them from entering India. The same Alauddin Khilji who when told by his court ulema to push for more Islamisation, tersely told them to stick to religious business & leave the business of administration to him even though he did destroy some temples & reward converts. History is never black & white. What you see is more often than not, what you want to see.

 

[Vinod2070]

Funny isn't it that another common bogeyman for some, Alauddin Khilji (of Rani Padmini fame)was ruler whose generals crushed the Mongols repeatedly preventing them from entering India. The same Alauddin Khilji who when told by his court ulema to push for more Islamisation, tersely told them to stick to religious business & leave the business of administration to him even though he did destroy some temples & reward converts. History is never black & white. What you see is more often than not, what you want to see.

Agree. There is always subjectivity involved beyond the facts.

Khilji was more black than white but I guess we don't have to go into that right now.

 

[bronxbull]

You shouldn't judge historic events based on modern sensitivities, but historic events should be judged based on the norms of the time when they occurred. This is the reason why Cheghis is known as conqueror but not a mass murderer.

Akbar waged war against Rajput not because they were Hindus, but because they were a thorn in his rule. He did whatever it was possible to subjugate them, by killing them en masse, marrying Rajput princes and once they were subjugated he made them allies.

Same way he also killed many Pashtun tribals when they rebelled against him.

Here he played a conqueror and stayed loyal to his cause as a reigning prince of Mughal empire.

Would call Ashoka was not secular because he annihilated the whole Kalinga?

It had a religious angle to it,it was not all pure political conquest.

 

[Manas]

Anyone who has read about caste discrimination during the last 2000 years in Hinduism would be left in no doubt that Hindus are as capable as Muslims in being rigidly sectarian .

India has no history of caste conflict in its several thousand years of History . There were territorial battles among the Hindus of different ethnicity ,but we never saw Brahman fighting wars with the Khatriyas or Shudras fighting the Vaisyas .Neither did we see different Hindu sects of vaishnavas ,Shivaites or Shakti worshipers fighting among themselves.

The magic potion that India drank & Pakistan didn't in 1947 was secularism which could only have been based on a multicultural & multi-religious country.

The word secular was inserted into the preambles of the indian constitution in 1976 not 1947 .

Before 1976 ,we were still secular by default as it was accepted that india would treat every citizens equally regardless of religion which is a basic principle of democratic country and there would no discrimination on the basis of religion.

Take religion out of the equation & caste & language would have had a bigger play.

Its not that India , a multi lingual country didn't face differences on the basics languages in its quest to develop a national language just simply because it was a secular nature . But India tried to resolve its language differences by not imposing Hindi as the state language and givng equal importance to local languages spoken in various parts of the country .

Pakistan on the other hand forced Urdu on everyone leading to resentment of the Bengali muslims that led to partition of pakistan and creation Bangadesh for ethinic Bangali muslims.

Caste is diminished only when you see the religion as a whole (which means the "other" is one from a different religion. Remove that & the caste identity quickly overtakes. U.P. would be a good example.

Caste became a political issue in the state of UP only in the early eighties when Mandal commission report for 33% reservations of the OBCs came out .Thats when leaders like Lalu Yadav , Mulayam singh etc started agitation and came to power on the promise of implementing the Mandal commision report .Otherwise UP was Congress Bastion till late eighties when Mulayam Singh became CM of UP for the first time in 1989.

The Ram janmabhoomi movement united castes & created a temporary edifice of a Hindu block which the BJP benefited from. Once the intensity died down, the castes once again took prominence & the party governing U.P. today does so on the strength of both the Muslim vote & some Hindu castes banded together.

Wrong assumption . The reverse is actually true.

To curb the growing effect Mandal politics seen in the late 80s and bring together different hindu castes under the banner of Hindutwa ,Lk Advani started the Ram janmabhoomi movement after Rajiv Gandhi gave him the perfect opportunity by open the site at Ram janmabhoomi ,Ayodhya in order to placate agiated Hindu sentiment after he played rank communal appsement of muslims in the Shahbanu case and BJP came to power in UP in 1993 . It faltered due inner party rivalries when its biggest leader Kalyan Singh was sidelined by AB Bajpayee.

[Pakistan is a good example regardless of what you may say. While there would have been differences, it proves that human identities are complicated & based on so many factors. The founders of Pakistan made the mistake of believing that Islam would unite & it did unite but only for a short while. Once Hindus were removed from the picture, other bogeymen took their place. Such is human nature & I can guarantee you with reasonable certainty that a Hindu India would have been no different.

As Bhairava has already explained juxtaposing Pakistani experience on india is plain stupid.

India was inherently secular giving shelter to alien religious groups from outside India and lived in peaceful coexistence with different indigenous religious groups throughout its history .Again we don't see much evidence of religious clashes ,e,g Bhuddist,Jains or Hindus etc fighting religious war and destruction each others places of worship and driving out nonbelievers from conquered lands.

And on the other hand pakistan is diverse but unnatural country created on artificial self destrictive concept called TNT .Once it was created TNT lost its use and in the absent of another strong foundation ,the country has been struggling to keep conflicting interest together .

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Funny isn't it that another common bogeyman for some, Alauddin Khilji (of Rani Padmini fame)was ruler whose generals crushed the Mongols repeatedly preventing them from entering India. The same Alauddin Khilji who when told by his court ulema to push for more Islamisation, tersely told them to stick to religious business & leave the business of administration to him even though he did destroy some temples & reward converts. History is never black & white. What you see is more often than not, what you want to see.

Irrespective of his bizzare orientation (Malik Kafur) and excessive lust, he did prove himself in the battle field.

Although entry of Mongols into Indian subcontinent could have been changed our history.

 

[truthseer]

I just wonder how people can make sad incidents like these a scoring point

 

[Bhairava]

You shouldn't judge historic events based on modern sensitivities, but historic events should be judged based on the norms of the time when they occurred. This is the reason why Cheghis is known as conqueror but not a mass murderer.

Akbar waged war against Rajput not because they were Hindus, but because they were a thorn in his rule. He did whatever it was possible to subjugate them, by killing them en masse, marrying Rajput princes and once they were subjugated he made them allies.

Same way he also killed many Pashtun tribals when they rebelled against him.

Here he played a conqueror and stayed loyal to his cause as a reigning prince of Mughal empire.

Would call Ashoka was not secular because he annihilated the whole Kalinga?

The point is the interpretation must be left to the reader and not the historian. It is intellectually dishonest on the part of the historian to leave out certain uncomfortable truths that dont 'fit the frame'. The job of the historian must be to strictly present the events and it must be the prerogative of the reader to draw his own conclusions from that.

EDIT: Regarding the "norms of the time", it might have been the norms in central asia or in the deserts of Arabia, but was not so in India where even in war, strict dharma was followed.

 

[Bhairava]

Thank you Manas for that reply.

Funny you should use Israel. Even though all Israelis are migrants to Israel (therefore no deep roots in a particular part unlike in India) & no segment has a majority, discrimination is still widespread. For years Indian jews were treated as second class citizens with the Rabbi's not even accepting that they were jews till their alien (read Indian) habits were wiped out & a sort of reconversion/purification done. Even today there is a huge fight between ultra orthodox jews & the others. This fight is both cultural (they sometimes spit on women in shorts or having uncovered hair) & political(more likely to believe that God gave them the west bank & Gaza & therefore opposed to settlement with the Palestinians). Israel is hardly the place you want to refer too.

You dont seem to get the point. The point is unlike them who have a book to refer to and interpret it literally - thus causing the friction of pure, less pure and more pure, Hinduism does not have that.

Moreover I dont understand why people think without Muslims, there would be no secularism. There would still be the other minorities. Also Turkey is a 98% Muslim country. Still they have secularism. So secularism would not have been a casualty, whether or not PE would have happened.

 

[Bhairava]

Coming back to topic,

Assam Riots: How Should India Deal with Illegal Migrants?

 

[Joe Shearer]

The point is the interpretation must be left to the reader and not the historian. It is intellectually dishonest on the part of the historian to leave out certain uncomfortable truths that dont 'fit the frame'. The job of the historian must be to strictly present the events and it must be the prerogative of the reader to draw his own conclusions from that.

No professional historian worth his (or her) salt leaves out uncomfortable truths that don't fit the frame; some, in fact, go to extremes to explain to their fellows why they have favoured one interpretation over another. Leaving out UNKNOWN facts is quite another matter; you will appreciate that there is constant discovery and renewal of evidence, and hence a need to review the accepted wisdom. Contrary to what you might imagine, this is something in which historians take almost perverse pleasure.

However, the historian cannot, by the nature of evidence available in history, present events strictly; this is not a chartered accountants exercise, and the historian is required to explain events (at a certain level; very often monographs confine themselves to a bare recital of the facts, the corroborative evidence, contradictory evidence, supporting authorities, opposing authorities, and perhaps, but not necessarily, a bare conclusion, posed as a hypothesis. At other levels, these monographs become the building blocks in explanatory or exegetic text (I am being playful in using that word in this context!).

Unfortunately, it is not the province of the reader, even the expert reader, to draw conclusions from the raw sources, because of the complexity of the evidence, and because of the need to remember the historical AND the historiographical context. That is well beyond the capacity of the common reader. Just as it is not the province of a layman to enter into a judgement on judicial evidence presented, even if all of it is presented.

You are free to accept this or not, of course.

A witty friend of mine described the state of things in India as paradoxical. In other places, religion was at the service of nationalism; in India, it was nationalism that was at the service of religion. One might say that in other places, historians analyze religious movements and trends, and influences on society; in India, the religious examine the history of our country and seek to place it within a satisfactory framework.

It won't work.

I shall draw a lesson from your last post, and stop distracting everybody's attention from the violence in Assam. No more laboured attempts to explain how history is done.