What's new

Coexistence with India - Part III

walwal

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
479
Reaction score
0
Country
India
Location
India
Third part of Coexistence with India - III

Source - Coexistence with India – III | Blog | DAWN.COM

Human identity comes from commitment and conduct. DNA defines one’s genetic stock but not one’s identity. As conscious beings with volition, humans carve their identity from what they think they are. How many Muslims of the subcontinent had Indian ancestors or how they became Muslims is not important. It is their sense of belonging and commitment that decides their relationship with the world. His DNA loses meaning when a white American Christian converts to Islam, takes an Arab name and joins al Qaeda to wage war against his own DNA stock.

Although Islam did not teach so, our ulema teaches us that Allah created Adam and his race only to be Muslims. Therefore, those who do not accept Islam, go against their humanity. Over the past 65 years this interpretation of humanity has taken ever deeper root in our thinking. We are made to believe that Muslims are the only proper humans, the righteous and the blessed; that the rest of mankind is on the wrong track and must be brought to the right track or under the rule of the righteous Muslim empire. With this belief as their banner, followers of Sheikh Ibne Wahhab and Syed Qutb aspire to establish their Global Arab Empire; human systems that do not conform to their concept of Islam must be abolished. The monster that our establishment created with a perverse lack of vision sold out to these international recruiters. Over decades all our resources were dumped into the hell pit of a security state. That security state itself is now facing a threat to its life at the hands of these misguided missiles.

But our alienation from the rest of mankind is not the only tragedy. Division within the Muslim camp starts on the issue: who is a “true Muslim”? As believers we have been taught for ages that the scholars of Islam know better, that they are the doctors of our soul. Now there are different sects of Muslims and every sect has its ulema. They define “true Muslims” according to their separate sets of belief. This has been growing into greater bitterness within the Muslim community, each declaring the other as misguided, if not heretical, leading to clashed and bloodshed.

Communal sentiment divides people in communities and alienates one from the other; this almost always pushes them into hostile positions. Hate generates hate and begets hate. People close their eyes and ears under the hypnosis of hate. They act like programmed robots; reason loses all meaning. Time showed this truth in tragic clarity.

Indian leaders chose the path of inclusiveness to combat communal clashes. Without this wise approach, the vengeance of the Hindu who was vanquished for centuries in his own motherland could have caused immense bloodshed. Imagine a Muslim population whose places of worship are attacked and destroyed for centuries, whose holies are repeatedly insulted for generations and then they rise to freedom and power! What massacres of revenge will you expect?

The gradual cooling down of temper and insanity is possible only in a tolerant democracy which permits diversity and discussion. It is this constitutional openness that saved India from falling apart. We, in Pakistan, chose to decide all matters on religious belief; first our ulema rejected people of other religions as “heretics”, then our own religious minorities one by one.

Does India aspire to annex Pakistan? In1946, the Muslim League leadership had agreed to remain part of the Indian Federation, in accordance with the Cabinet Mission Plan which provided the Muslim majority provinces with constitutional autonomy. Parties agreed to draft that constitution as the Cabinet Mission Plan stipulated. But within days, the congress policy changed. Maulana Azad, obviously in a considered move, handed over the Congress presidency to Jawahar Lal Nehru, who as the new president declared that the parliament will independently decide matters in the session by majority. The Congress Committee did not reject its president’s statement. This meant a clear move to shed us away as a load which they thought would suck more than serve. They could have kept us if they wished. Time could have weakened our resolve for separation, but that could be then. As for now, after what we have made of ourselves, a perfect hornets’ nest, a paranoid crowd of self-righteous militants, it seems highly improbable for any sane planner of India to annex Pakistan.

This strategy of load shedding by Nehru, Patel and their like could at best be called clever. It was not wise as many humanists warned. Division based on hate is not diversity but disorder. Diversity is individuality in harmony with its world, while disorder is a dismissal of harmony. That clever move made the “Two Nations” waste their trillions on weapons of mass destruction, leaving their teeming millions in abject misery. It brought several wars to the subcontinent and pushed our part to the brink of one civil war after another till it reduced us to diverse tribes of a mythical ummah where no national identity exists.

Do we inherit the sins and liabilities of our ancestors? Yes, because we inherit their virtues and their assets. Like other conquerors, our medieval ancestors ruled their subjects against their will. Hindus never went out of the subcontinent to invade or rule others, while invasion and domination were genetic to Muslims. They preferred to dominate rather than befriend. Conquest and killing leaves lasting scars. Those who are disgraced and defeated pass their memories of pain to the posterity, that breeds new conflicts. Only an admission of misdeeds opens the path to redemption. The contemporary descendants of Vikings, Romans and Mongols do not take pride in the violent history of their ancestors. In contrast, the boastful pride of our past makes us crudely unique and alienates us from the world. An honest admission instead can work as the recipe for coexistence. Such civilized attitudes are not humiliating; they can win us respect among nations. But that is not possible without a strong dismissal of the terrorists who represent the darkest aspects of our psyche.

And we have to acknowledge the irreversibility of history. The two people have to remain two or more as they are already three with Bangladesh. They have to learn the essence of diversity before they sit together like Europeans. Intellectuals and statesmen who wish reason and peace to prevail have to accept with patience the indispensability of popular will, if not consensus, on such future reconciliation. We have to create the consciousness that changes human destiny and changes the world. Yes, we have no option now except to mend our ways and learn to modestly coexist with the world, which starts with the neighbor’s door.
 
.
Do we inherit the sins and liabilities of our ancestors? Yes, because we inherit their virtues and their assets. Like other conquerors, our medieval ancestors ruled their subjects against their will. Hindus never went out of the subcontinent to invade or rule others, while invasion and domination were genetic to Muslims. They preferred to dominate rather than befriend. Conquest and killing leaves lasting scars. Those who are disgraced and defeated pass their memories of pain to the posterity, that breeds new conflicts. Only an admission of misdeeds opens the path to redemption. The contemporary descendants of Vikings, Romans and Mongols do not take pride in the violent history of their ancestors. In contrast, the boastful pride of our past makes us crudely unique and alienates us from the world. An honest admission instead can work as the recipe for coexistence. Such civilized attitudes are not humiliating; they can win us respect among nations. But that is not possible without a strong dismissal of the terrorists who represent the darkest aspects of our psyche.

This is something very weird among Muslims. The Christians dont claim to have 'ruled us'. Rather they all say that Britishers ruled over us - Indians - including Indian Christians.

Yet Pakistani's - they keep talking about 'ruling' as if they were personally ruling the rest of India. They also are eager to condone any savagery done by their ancestors or even compatriots now like killing of people because of cartoons drawn of the prophet and what not, yet they are the first ones to cry if something is done to them.
 
.
This is something very weird among Muslims. The Christians dont claim to have 'ruled us'. Rather they all say that Britishers ruled over us - Indians - including Indian Christians.

To be fair not all Christians. The first decades after Independence, the Anglos would still consider England the motherland and the Queen their monarch. Many if not all did by hook or crook move back to the "motherland". Please see the movie Julie for a satirical portrayal of the Anglo community in India. Why only Anglos, please go to Goa. There is a strong undercurrent there amongst certain pockets of pride in their "Portuguese" blood and the fact that they are "not Indian".
 
.
To be fair not all Christians. The first decades after Independence, the Anglos would still consider England the motherland and the Queen their monarch. Many if not all did by hook or crook move back to the "motherland". Please see the movie Julie for a satirical portrayal of the Anglo community in India. Why only Anglos, please go to Goa. There is a strong undercurrent there amongst certain pockets of pride in their "Portuguese" blood and the fact that they are "not Indian".

I cannot make a comment on this as i have not seen this or experienced it in any form today. Maybe it existed back then, but for all intents and purposes, its dead now.

As far as Goa is concerned, there is a fringe that still believes that, but as with more and more commercialization of Goa and economic dependency on the rest of India, these will also melt away.

So - today - its just the Muslims - and Pakistani Muslims who have been taught to breed a superiority complex of their past - because today they cannot match India.
 
.
To be fair not all Christians. The first decades after Independence, the Anglos would still consider England the motherland and the Queen their monarch. Many if not all did by hook or crook move back to the "motherland". Please see the movie Julie for a satirical portrayal of the Anglo community in India. Why only Anglos, please go to Goa. There is a strong undercurrent there amongst certain pockets of pride in their "Portuguese" blood and the fact that they are "not Indian".

Actually you bring up an important point ....How many of Indians are aware that there are 2 seats reserved exclusively for 'Anglo Indians' in the Lok Sabha ? ....and here come the best part ..these seats are not be be filled by democratic elections but by appointment by the President of India. Does anyone know the % of Anglo Indians in India :P

No other community in India has this same privileged. Don't forget to thank chacha Nehru for this magnanimity.

It gets better ....Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Karnataka and Kerala also have a nominated member each in their respective State Legislatures. :enjoy:
 
.
...let me post pictures of other 'minority' that does not get this priviledge ...

Siddis of Gujarat :

28kids.jpg


Jarawa of Andaman:

JARAWA30_medium.jpg


Nicobarese of Nicobar:

tribels.jpg


I guess it pays to be a half european christian in India ....
 
.
...let me post pictures of other 'minority' that does not get this priviledge ...

Siddis of Gujarat :

28kids.jpg


Jarawa of Andaman:

JARAWA30_medium.jpg


Nicobarese of Nicobar:

tribels.jpg


I guess it pays to be a half european christian in India ....

one of my classmate in ahmedabad was a siddi.
 
.
Hindus never went out of the subcontinent to invade or rule others, while invasion and domination were genetic to Muslims.

What does it matter if the Hindu conquests were in the subcontinent or outside. The fact is that Indian history is replete with conquests of various kingdoms over each other. The only reason Hindus didn't venture out is because there was enough trouble at home to go a-hunting far away. When opportunity presented, Hindus (Cholas) also colonized SE Asia.

It's hard to respect imbecile authors who blabber on politically expedient platitudes without knowing history.
 
.
Actually you bring up an important point ....How many of Indians are aware that there are 2 seats reserved exclusively for 'Anglo Indians' in the Lok Sabha ? ....and here come the best part ..these seats are not be be filled by democratic elections but by appointment by the President of India. Does anyone know the % of Anglo Indians in India :P

No other community in India has this same privileged. Don't forget to thank chacha Nehru for this magnanimity.

It gets better ....Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Karnataka and Kerala also have a nominated member each in their respective State Legislatures. :enjoy:

Yes of course there are two nominated seats for Anglo-Indians in Parliament. Just as there are 12 other nominated seats in Parliament for "eminent persons" from all fields. Sachin Tendulkar and Rekha are among these 12 now (previous persons in that category were Lata Mangeshkar, Ravi Shankar, Shabana Azmi etc). You overlook the fact that it is a privilege given to all these nominated members; but they are not associated with any party symbol. One of the first nominated members from the AI category was Frank Anthony a leading educationist who served for well over 3 decades IIRC right from the Constituent Assembly days. Generally; the nominated members including the AI members were of a higher caliber than the general elected members. Another thing that you need to LEARN: this concept of nominated members was created by the Constituent Assembly of the Republic of India and was incorporated in to the Constitution of India by a vote. That vote was taken in an assembly consisting of members such as Rajendra Prasad, B.R. Ambedkar, G.D.Mavalankar, Vallabhbhai Patel and so many others including one member called Nehru.

I hope you are now better INFORMED AND EDUCATED than before; after reading this post. :)
 
. .
What does it matter if the Hindu conquests were in the subcontinent or outside. The fact is that Indian history is replete with conquests of various kingdoms over each other. The only reason Hindus didn't venture out is because there was enough trouble at home to go a-hunting far away. When opportunity presented, Hindus (Cholas) also colonized SE Asia.

It's hard to respect imbecile authors who blabber on politically expedient platitudes without knowing history.

Yes Indians have rule S.E Asia and they also ruled Afganistan close to 400 years and never did they claim they want to colonize these countries again and purify (delusion) in the name of religion.(first point).

Second point your entire ideology about Pakistan is anti India and anti Hindu you people still rant about conquering Red fort and colonizing India and make it a muslim state. Infact Indians never ever said this kind of words even if we suffered at Islamic conquest for centuries main difference between a progressive society and a soceity which was brought up with false notions and claims.

The author is worrying about the current mind set of Pakistani society and comparing it with other countries which are relative peace loving.
 
.
Point is Capt. sir, why only for Anglo Indians?

Are they no other equally deserving minorities in India?

THere was a reason for it. They are/were one among many minorities. Parsis are a minority too; why no nominated sets for them? Anglo Indians were in the position of being (if I may say so) an "endangered minority". First of all they were too closely identified with the British (at least in physical terms) hence they could have been vulnerable after the British left. Secondly, they were a minority "born out of inter-marriage". So it was clearly recognised by all in the Constituent Assembly that they were going to be in steadily diminishing numbers; hence should be afforded some protection.

All that having been said; the contribution of Anglo Indians to Free India was immense! They were in the Armed forces in huge numbers. Most of the operating staff of the Indian Railways were from their community. I will go so far as to say that if they had left India with the British; the Railways then could have ground to a halt. They were the backbone of the Police forces everywhere. They ran the Nursing Services all over the country. Their contribution to Education is an "unsung glory". E.G. most of the instructors in IMA and NDA (earlier the JSW in Doon) were AIs. They helped to set up the template of the educational system in India. Do not overlook these facts. Even more so for a "misplaced sense of nationalism".
 
.
Yes Indians have rule S.E Asia and they also ruled Afganistan close to 400 years and never did they claim they want to colonize these countries again and purify (delusion) in the name of religion.(first point).

Oh please!

For every Zaid Hamid in Pakistan, there is an Akhand Bharat loony in India.

Second point your entire ideology about Pakistan is anti India and anti Hindu

There is a segment of Indian Hindu society which is just as rabidly anti-Muslim. Both extremists feed on each other.

You are no saints, so spare me the self-righteousness.
 
.
Oh please!

For every Zaid Hamid in Pakistan, there is an Akhand Bharat loony in India.
There is a segment of Indian Hindu society which is just as rabidly anti-Muslim. Both extremists feed on each other.

You are no saints, so spare me the self-righteousness.

So you are drawing your own conclusions about Akhand Bharat now. That slogan died a long time ago and if we have that idea of conquering the small states we would have done it by now.

Regarding the hating of muslims yes I agree there are haters based on religion on both sides but, The case in Pakistan is it has become the state ideology(anti India and Hindu).
 
.
Do we inherit the sins and liabilities of our ancestors? Yes, because we inherit their virtues and their assets. Like other conquerors, our medieval ancestors ruled their subjects against their will. Hindus never went out of the subcontinent to invade or rule others, while invasion and domination were genetic to Muslims. They preferred to dominate rather than befriend. Conquest and killing leaves lasting scars. Those who are disgraced and defeated pass their memories of pain to the posterity, that breeds new conflicts.

How many pakistanis have ancestry of central asian or Arab origin invaders ?? A minuscule minority ??

The fact of the matter is that most Pakistanis are son of soils who converted to Islam from native religions when those areas that Constitute Pakistan was invaded by muslim conquers from outside the indian subcontinent .

Even those Muslim conquers came alone minus their wives , so mother was always Indian. :coffee:

Still most Pakistanis including this author pretend as if just being Muslim makes them the sole inheritors of the Moghul rulers of middle age india though they share nothing with the moghuls except religion.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom