What would have Jinnah thought of Ajmal Kasab and gang, wonders SC

[Contrarian]

While I don't deny that some Muslim leaders might have pushed that notion, can you seriously believe that any common Muslim, with his feet halfway on the ground, could have seen any realistic way of achieving that and, therefore, subscribing to it?

Ideally that is what should have happened. But Muslims unfortunately are way too susceptible to anyone who says anything from a platform of Islam.

Examples are galore, how Muslims dont think with their minds and get swept away by what their leaders have said as long as the leaders make sure they say that its for the 'good of Islam'.

Couple that with the average Muslim not just in India but Pakistan and even globally less educated than an average non Muslim and you have a potent combination of Islam and no education.

So yes, i can see many Muslims subscribing to that theory. Like i said examples are galore globally of how most Muslims don't even read themselves but believe anything their political leaders or mullah's say(generally the two are not mutually exclusive).

There is no easy way of putting it. Essentially their claim of victimisation was based simply on the fact that many on the "Hindu" side were not agreeable to give the Muslims, representation greater than the numbers merited. Disagreement on that score was the essence of their theories of victimisation than any actual case. Add all that I have said above with the fact that some Muslims of the subcontinent could not reconcile to the passage of time & the diminishing of their power & you had a potent mix culminating in support for the TNT.

My question had a modern context, why even today Muslims have a victimhood complex?

 

[Ticker]

This is not double speak. We are secular does not mean that we will allow Indians to start secessionist movements in India. Because we are democratic does not mean we will allow Indians to undermine the entity that is India.

Human right violations occur time and again because we are dealing with movements that are violent in nature mostly. Violence is used to quell insurgencies. Many a times it is politically expedient for the group that was acted against to cry human right violations. A perfect example is Kashmir. While there have been excesses undoubtedly, the scale which Pakistani's and some kashmiri's imply is simply untrue.

The other times, even the security forces are humans - and they do get tired - they act out. In many cases when evidence allows, people who do these crimes are arrested.

You statement is like saying - 'You say America is the richest country in the world, yet you have people begging on the streets.'

Or

'Indians say they are getting richer, but you have x million people who dont even have toilets'

This is about the solid and undeniable trendlines. Which direction the country is moving to.
I have said repeatedly, we are moving towards a more and and more inclusive society. This is something that most Indians see.

And probably the biggest factor contributing to this is sound education. If bigotry is taught in education, no nation will grow tolerant.

It is very easy to raise nationalistic fervor while defending human right violations committed by your own security forces against your own people, and this even without a mention of introspective thought venturing in to the reasoning of such discrimination, leads one to believe the majority versus minority thinking.

And if this is the thinking, the discriminatory relevance of text books may not be visible to those in majority with even open eyes. And if you think that you are moving in right direction without resorting to corrective introspective analyses of all things inclusive, this Sir, is tantamount to moving one step forward and taking two steps backwards. Yo are welcome to do this.

You deliberately chose to disregard what i posted in context of the NCERT report.
Let me say it again and hopefully for the last time.
A report by NCERT on the regional books indicates that the biggest national education body was concerned about even what is written in regional books. You had to find a report 14 years old to try and prove your point.

And this is when the national text books of NCERT and ICSE are already checked, double checked and then some more and links have been given for you to read.

You deliberately chose to ignore these points and not go in specifics and instead point out - 'look your books have it too!'

Yes it is a positive step that attempts are being ventured in to, to stop such discrimination. However, I was not saying that attempts were not being made, all I said was that there was and is discriminatory and bigoted thoughts printed in the text books - you people just wouldn't agree.

It however is a different matter and a rather simpler response, to progress and entice collusion of peoples by hiding historical facts or contrarily, by presenting them in a manner which does not hide these discriminations, yet produce a salutary and congenial result.

Those are not 'so called' high moral values. Those are actual high values. When you teach your children to be communal, guess what? They will grow into being more communal than you.

This is not about trashing their own. There are some mistakes of your policy makers and they want to correct it. Course correction in a nation is very important.

I disagree with you entirely. You are sitting far away and comment on a subject on superficial and face valued comments made by some of us. They actually do not understand as to how it all happened and comment on stuff, totally out of context. I know such people much better than you do.

And this is the story of Pakistan. After 70's each decade has only brought more and more communalism and religious intolerance to Pakistan as your books have become more Muslim Oriented.

We are Muslim and we belong to a Muslim country, our books would represent our beliefs and our own culture. Whats wrong with that. Why are you getting so perturbed about it. You should get perturbed about the fact that you are a secular country and are turning religious. Display of Hindu religious aspects are all over. See an opening ceremony of any sort, enter Hindu religious stuff, see an Indian movie, the opening is studded with Hindu Gods and mantras. When you can't keep your beliefs in your own homes and while in public, display secular ethics as Hindu religious oriented facets in most public displays, there is something seriously wrong there - and it also does not then, give you a right to talk about my religious portrayal or display ethics.

I gave you an example from what you posted yourself. After the 1857 revolt, you said Indian books dont mention that Muslims suffered. I pointed out that we dont even mention any community like that in many instances of such suffering. It is always 'some Indian communities' or 'Indians' suffered. As pointed out by another member, why should the 1857 revolt be treated as akin to a Muslim jehad against British rule. Why do you have to point out that Muslims suffered? So that kids who are muslims carry some victim mentality and develop some level of hate to other communities?

I have talked about it earlier. Hiding the facts related to discriminatory behaviour does not take the pain away from those who have been discriminated against. It also does not show the wrongfulness and the absurdity of such discrimination to those who committed such acts. It just amounts to shoving it under the carpet in order to hide the facts.

In Germany, they display the atrocities committed by Nazis to make the society at large aware of what happened, and then take it on from there to other conciliatory methodologies to produce better results in order to achieve collusion amongst peoples.

Why do you have to prove that it was Muslims and ignore others. What message does this give to children?
Why is it a problem in Pakistan, if you teach them each community's contribution without skipping over anything? If at all you have to skip over, then you should skip over the wrong doings of any community on another.

But instead you have books teaching how Hindus and Sikhs killed Muslims in partition but not the other way round.

The fact that you look at everything from a a religious glass and teach your children that, will only lead to a further degradation in Pakistani societal values.

The methodology are different. Whereas, you in India want to hide the facts instead of facing them and redressing the causes - we want to face these head on and also redress the causes. You may not agree with it - please don't.

I dont have any issues with you being a Pakistani. Why would i have to lump it?

[0QUOTE]While you maybe an exception. All you need to do is take a look at the many Pakistani's who do call Indians as Hindu's. My personal view and as agreed to by another Pakistani member is that they do it to justify what they have been taught at school - India is Hindu and other communities in India are just used as 'garnishing' by Hindus to fake to the world that India is secular.

Your above comment at times draw me to a feeling that it is more related to your personal desire to attain unity within India and because in India, every now and then you have Hindu-Muslim riots, you have Hindu-Christian problems and killings related to these and you have Hindu-Sikh spats over Sikhism being a panth of Hinduism and son on. I don't know, but at times some of you people do give this feeling and it may also be related to a methodology. Hide it under the carpet and shut the eye, without making much needed course corrections aimed at alleviating the societal divide and differences.

That is solely due to Pakistan's own leaders and the policies they chose. Nothing to do with us. Pakistan's own leaders tried to become the ring leaders in global jehad by putting their own kids in the fire. Pakistan has long nurtured these strategic assets. And world see's that most terrorists have some kind of connection to Pakistan. Lets leave it at that.

With time, as now Pakistan has changed those policies, such perceptions will change. It'll take some time.

Thankyou. I do hope you realize my intent is not to be derogatory or win some points over you. This is simply an exchange of opinions wherein we both benefit.

Ha ha ha ..... you can't help taking a swipe at Pakistan at the end, and then crib that it is the Pakistanis who respond badly.

The course corrections needed at societal level can't be selective and have to be all-encompassing. You can't at the same time, discuss aspects related to growth of congenial environment between two peoples and then try and kick some ones posterior with negative parting remarks.

 

[Contrarian]

Well terrorism is something totally different and there is a reason why globally people are associating Islamic terrorism with Pakistan.
You tell me why is Islamic terrorism globally associated with Pakistan, and not Indonesia or Bangladesh or Malaysia? Why Pakistan. If you can truly answer that question and relate it the policies chosen by the Pakistani leaders then you have your answer.

That is different debate altogether.

On the topic of education. All i will say is this. The books that are produced in India have led to lesser violence every passing decade in India with increasing education in that decade. So something, somewhere we are doing must be right. That is all i have to say about India.

If you feel that Pakistani books are correct in how they create a negative impression of minorities in Pakistan, then you are entitled to your views as i am to mine.

I along with many others feel that Pakistan's books must be less Islamisized (the exact opposite of what Zia did) and not present one sided view of reality. So for example if the books say that Muslims were butchered during Partition by Hindus and Sikhs, so must the books say that Muslims of Pakistan also butchered Hindus and Sikhs going to India. Equality is a must otherwise it simply leads to victimhood mentality and if among the majority community in Pakistan can be really bad. It would lead to a communal mindset.

This in no way takes away from Pakistan being an Islamic Republic. But being Muslim in an Islamic republic doesnt mean being communal and showing one half of a coin. Hindus or Christians are also part of your nation. If you choose to keep them, then you cannot allow people to have a communal mindset.

Fortunately for me, there are many Pakistani's who agree to this.

 

[KS]

My question had a modern context, why even today Muslims have a victimhood complex?

When you develop a world view of 'us vs them' and you arent militarily strong enough to clash with the 'them' part, then automatically you develop a victim hood complex.

Do you think they harbored the same victim hood complex when the Arab light cavalry was spreading in four directions conquering lands and spreading Islam ?

 

[Ticker]

Do you have any facts to the contrary?

Being blindsided is not a decease sir, it merely is attired in escapism.

Oh there are facts available and I am sure you would have read them. I however would not have the misfortune of presenting them to you.

 

[Bobby]

Jinnah would have died again...seeing the condition of his Pakistan.....

 

[Joe Shearer]

Being blindsided is not a decease sir, it merely is attired in escapism.

Oh there are facts available and I am sure you would have read them. I however would not have the misfortune of presenting them to you.

This is the key. There is nothing tangible to show that there was discrimination against Muslims. On the contrary, until 1832, the language of administration, even in British territory, was Persian. Muslims had an advantage even then.

You will be surprised to find that there is in fact, NO tangible evidence of discrimination against Muslims, and that most of the fear and apprehension felt was conjecture.

 

[Contrarian]

This is the key. There is nothing tangible to show that there was discrimination against Muslims. On the contrary, until 1832, the language of administration, even in British territory, was Persian. Muslims had an advantage even then.

You will be surprised to find that there is in fact, NO tangible evidence of discrimination against Muslims, and that most of the fear and apprehension felt was conjecture.

You know Joe, even though you say this, i find it a hard to believe. There has historically been repression by upper caste Hindus against lower caste Hindus, i dont think Muslims would've got a better deal - that too in an age when such practice was not condemned as it is now.

This is not to detract from what you said earlier, about Muslims being scared of losing the paramount position they held.

I think both these aspects are true.

 

[Ticker]

Well terrorism is something totally different and there is a reason why globally people are associating Islamic terrorism with Pakistan.
You tell me why is Islamic terrorism globally associated with Pakistan, and not Indonesia or Bangladesh or Malaysia? Why Pakistan. If you can truly answer that question and relate it the policies chosen by the Pakistani leaders then you have your answer.

Oh so terrorism is associated with Pakistan only as if India and others have never used such methodology or such proxies/terrorism before.

All powerful countries resort to all kinds of immoral forms to further their interests. This is an undeniable historical fact.

US has used proxies/terrorism in all habitable continents and even now resort to using such proxies/terrorism.

Indians used proxies/terrorism in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Afghanistan and even in Maldives.

The British, the French, the Israelis, the Iranians, the Saudis, many African countries and even Qataris and many other nations have used and are still using proxies/terrorism.

Pakistanis have used proxies/terrorism, but what they failed was in control of post operation blow-back and are suffering to an extent. They will learn from their mistakes.

The only problem has been that, the powerful few keep such freedom as their right while denying it to others.

This was brought to particular fore in post 9/11 environment, wherein some proxies/terrorism were re-named as terrorists, and those left without sponsors were called non-state actors, and still many others were being created and those in existence were being used incognito.

Hence the use of proxies/terrorism became kosher for the privileged few and for others it became the scourge of supporting of terrorism.

But if you feel that some how the world of nation states will become moral and seek heavenly purity, you are far from reality and do not understand the meaning of real-politik.

This will continue by whatever name one may like to give it, whatever the moral support it may be fueled in, as long as the space exists for its usage it will be used. And the space would always be there either for exploitation or for new creation.

That is different debate altogether.

On the topic of education. All i will say is this. The books that are produced in India have led to lesser violence every passing decade in India with increasing education in that decade. So something, somewhere we are doing must be right. That is all i have to say about India.

If you feel that Pakistani books are correct in how they create a negative impression of minorities in Pakistan, then you are entitled to your views as i am to mine.

I along with many others feel that Pakistan's books must be less Islamisized (the exact opposite of what Zia did) and not present one sided view of reality. So for example if the books say that Muslims were butchered during Partition by Hindus and Sikhs, so must the books say that Muslims of Pakistan also butchered Hindus and Sikhs going to India. Equality is a must otherwise it simply leads to victimhood mentality and if among the majority community in Pakistan can be really bad. It would lead to a communal mindset.

While you are happy apportioning blame on Pakistan, you don't have the courage to accept the reality of doctoring of text books in India, as highlighted by your own people.

I didn't and don't approve of Zia's misguided Islamization attempts in Pakistan.

There is mention of atrocities committed by Muslims in Pakistani text books. Because these are not highlighted as you want them to be, doesn't mean that these aspects have not been highlighted.

Your mentality is to hide the atrocities committed by Hindus in British India and in Hindu dominated India, our methodology is not to hide the facts.

The proof of success of our methodology is the fact that Pakistanis even after having read all this in their text books, still would like to see Indian movies, Indian TV channels, and I am sure you would be aware that Pakistani TV Channels are banned in India (hide the facts methodology), Pakistanis and still support peace initiatives with India.

It is a small and indeed about 1% of Pakistanis, who go to madrassas and are not processed through the same methodology. Efforts are underway to introduce an all Pakistan syllabus in all these madrassas and over a period of time, the results would be forthcoming.

This in no way takes away from Pakistan being an Islamic Republic. But being Muslim in an Islamic republic doesnt mean being communal and showing one half of a coin. Hindus or Christians are also part of your nation. If you choose to keep them, then you cannot allow people to have a communal mindset.

Fortunately for me, there are many Pakistani's who agree to this.

I have explained the things above. You may not agree with it. Please don't.

 

[Ticker]

You know Joe, even though you say this, i find it a hard to believe. There has historically been repression by upper caste Hindus against lower caste Hindus, i dont think Muslims would've got a better deal - that too in an age when such practice was not condemned as it is now.

This is not to detract from what you said earlier, about Muslims being scared of losing the paramount position they held.

I think both these aspects are true.

In his book "Later Mughal History of Punjab" published in 1943, Hari Ram Gupta describes an event rather nonchalantly. He describes that when Abdali was moving to Delhi during his last invasion, while passing Amritsar he ordered that Golden Temple be blown up with gun powder, and it was partially destroyed. Cows were also slaughtered in the temple's pond which was partially filled with cow blood. When Abdali left India, the Sikhs in Punjab gathered tens of thousands of Muslims during the month of June and forced them to lick the pond clean with their tongues. Over 30,000 Muslims died performing this act.

Whatever the reasons, such massive killing sprees of innocent common man can never be condoned in any era.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You know Joe, even though you say this, i find it a hard to believe. There has historically been repression by upper caste Hindus against lower caste Hindus, i dont think Muslims would've got a better deal - that too in an age when such practice was not condemned as it is now.

This is not to detract from what you said earlier, about Muslims being scared of losing the paramount position they held.

I think both these aspects are true.

Here we need to be clear to compare oranges with other oranges.

The ghastly repression of the Dalit by caste Hindus was a fait accompli, and had prevailed over millennia, with short spells of respite during the ascendancy of Buddhism. The domination of Muslims by caste Hindus was a possibility, a speculation, and it was never put to the test.

 

[Joe Shearer]

While you are happy apportioning blame on Pakistan, you don't have the courage to accept the reality of doctoring of text books in India, as highlighted by your own people.

I didn't and don't approve of Zia's misguided Islamization attempts in Pakistan.

There is mention of atrocities committed by Muslims in Pakistani text books. Because these are not highlighted as you want them to be, doesn't mean that these aspects have not been highlighted.

Your mentality is to hide the atrocities committed by Hindus in British India and in Hindu dominated India, our methodology is not to hide the facts.

The proof of success of our methodology is the fact that Pakistanis even after having read all this in their text books, still would like to see Indian movies, Indian TV channels, and I am sure you would be aware that Pakistani TV Channels are banned in India (hide the facts methodology), Pakistanis and still support peace initiatives with India.

It is a small and indeed about 1% of Pakistanis, who go to madrassas and are not processed through the same methodology. Efforts are underway to introduce an all Pakistan syllabus in all these madrassas and over a period of time, the results would be forthcoming.

While your painstaking and careful attention to detail is admirable, it is not clear why you persist with lines of explanation that have been disproved or contradicted. There have been other examples elsewhere, but here this myopic persistence with the issue of textbook based propaganda persists.

First, Romila Thapar's criticism reflected the current thinking among historians that the traditional division of Indian history along communal lines was an infantile mechanism, and had served its purpose and outlived its utility. Current thinking, as you perhaps already know, is to recognize that between so-called modern Indian history and ancient Indian history, roughly between the Gupta Empire and the advent of the British, the period of some nine hundred years was better viewed as the development of changed systems of administration, major changes in society, and religious revolutions, and could be fruitfully divided into two portions, early mediaeval Indian history and late mediaeval Indian history.

This new taxonomy recognized the progression of change, and sought to examine the commonality and the continuity of political, social and religious life through this extremely long period.

In order to compare, in European history, the equivalent period lasted for nearly a thousNd years, but started earlier than in India, and ended earlier than in India.

It is a grave error to think that the effort was to expose the reality of Muslim rule in India, or that the intention was to show it in a favourable light. As a matter of fact, quite the contrary. The intention was to take the excessive attention paid to religious shocks out of consideration; to that extent, it was ameliorative. It was also to harmonize the rule of Turkish rulers in Delhi with the practices and methods of their predecessors, and to examine the nature of the mixed systems that arose. This was flatly contrary to the theme sought to be pursued by Islamocentric pedagogues, for whom Indian history only started with the short-lived Arab intervention in the Sind.

Modern historians of India, the sub-continent, not the political state, have views of the period which will not suit the ideological requirements of Pakistan, and it is a mistake to seek support from these new points of view to plead that the Pakistani system has any parallels in India.

Touching upon the distortions of history by the BJP in the states and under the arch-revisionist Murli Manohar Joshi at the centre, which Parvati Menon dwelt upon with such genuine passion and anguish, there seems to be a complete lack of understanding of events by Pakistani observers, if your comments are any index.

There was massive distortion. It was short-lived at the centre. The damage was rolled back the day the BJP lost power, and the general impact has been a refreshing one. There are still distortions in the states ruled by the BJP, and these are being addressed by an active coalition of administrators and concerned experts.

Except for that brief brush with the manipulations of the BJP, which lasted for less than a fifth of the period of our existence as a secular nation, there has been no systemic corruption of knowledge as has happened in Pakistan. On the other hand, even our madrases, particularly in Bengal, are linked to modern learning by the active efforts of the state, offer opportunities for further education in the secondary and tertiary levels, and are not restricted to Muslims; Hindu children are accepted and are sent to attend these, with modified courses of religious instruction,by their parents.

There cannot be a wider gulf between the approach to education inIndia and in Pakistan, and I do not say this as an Indian, but as an observer.

 

[Riteon]

Joe shearer


sir your post was so informative and the clarity....

thank you

 

[Ticker]

@Joe Shearer

Thank you for agreeing with most of what I tried to explain in my earlier posts.

You have a unique ability and subtlety to explain matters which are contentious.

ha ha ha ....... even @Riteon thanked you for understanding something which he should have understood a bit earlier, but for my unsubtle expose.

My unsubtle expose was a deliberate undertaking and the target audience were not only the Indian posters.

There are however other aspects on which I hold a different view - but that for a later discussion.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Joe shearer


sir your post was so informative and the clarity....

thank you

To be honest, I wrote for the special attention of Ticker. He has a fine analytical mind, and if we can present out arguments to him and gain his support, it is an important gain. We have to overlook his unsurprising testiness at what he - and others - have come to see as a rigid attitude of moral rectitude on our part. Naturally such a perceived attitude is resented, and it is important to be as informative as possible. Also honest and open.

I am glad you liked the narration. I hope you will contribute in your turn, and will convey to people from other countries the realities of life in India. Both the good and the bad.

@Joe Shearer

Thank you for agreeing with most of what I tried to explain in my earlier posts.

You have a unique ability and subtlety to explain matters which are contentious.

ha ha ha ....... even @Riteon thanked you for understanding something which he should have understood a bit earlier, but for my unsubtle expose.

My unsubtle expose was a deliberate undertaking and the target audience were not only the Indian posters.

There are however other aspects on which I hold a different view - but that for a later discussion.

I wrote about my post before reading yours. I am always available to discuss aspects where views differ. Much of my understanding of these international relations has emerged from detailed discussions, and my views have undoubtedly changed - probably for the better.