Modi-watch


by Rumbold
7th December, 2007 at 1:01 pm    

K Singh alerted us to the news that, with elections in Gujarat approaching, the Chief Minister, Narenda Modi, is in trouble. Modi has been implicated in the 2002 massacre of Muslims in Gujarat, yet still retains his post and much of his popularity. This is not the first time that he has been in trouble during these elections either:

“India’s election authorities have demanded an explanation from a politician over remarks he made during an election meeting in western Gujarat. The state’s chief minister, Narendra Modi, allegedly commented on the 2005 killing of a man by police in Gujarat. According to Indian media, at Tuesday’s meeting Mr Modi appeared to have “justified” the killing.

In April, three top policemen were charged with the murder of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, a Muslim civilian. They are alleged to have attempted to cover up the killing by claiming he belonged to an Islamic militant group.

Mr Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government then admitted that the missing wife of Mr Sheikh, Kausar Bi, was also killed and her body was burnt.”

Happily, the Hindu fundamentalist organization the RSS is split on whether or not to back him. Interesting interview with Modi here.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs,Hindu,India,Organisations






175 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. mk — on 7th December, 2007 at 1:42 pm  

    The BJP in Gujarat are in disarray with rebels splintering off left, right and centre. The RSS/VHP have no idea who to back and some sub-factions are even backing many Congress candidates. And Modi with a severe case of foot in mouth recently.

    Well if Sonia Gandhi and her party can’t win this state back then Modi will be there to rule for decades.

  2. Raju — on 7th December, 2007 at 2:21 pm  

    sonia gandhi’s congress party is tainted with the blood of 5,000 innocent Sikh civilans back in 1984 anti-sikh genocidal pograms. To many Sikhs the indian congress party is a terrorist entity. So it has no moral authority over anything it has to say to BJP/VHP

  3. Sid — on 7th December, 2007 at 2:27 pm  

    Modi is one of many Indians Hitchens would like to start an “Internationalist” agenda with to battle “Islamofacism”. Trust a Trot to side with Fascists to fight their battles.

  4. Indy — on 7th December, 2007 at 2:39 pm  

    Out here I would like to make somethings clear. Mr. Modi is a democratically elected Chief Minister of Gujarat. In last elections he was elected by a huge margin and chances are that in this election too he will win.

    During his tenure as Chief Minister Gujarat’s economy has grown by 15%, while the economy of rest of India has grown by a mere 8.5%. Unemployment in Gujarat are record lows. Yes the riots that happened in 2002 are a blot on Modi’s record.

    But since then Modi has proved his mettle as an able administrator and these days he enjoys strong support in the country and abroad.

  5. Indy — on 7th December, 2007 at 2:43 pm  

    “Happily, the Hindu fundamentalist organization the RSS is split on whether or not to back him. ”
    —-

    First of all RSS is not a so called Hindu Fundamentalist Organization. It is a cultural organization.

    And I am not sure that RSS is not backing Modi. In fact, TV reports suggest that RSS cadres are out in the streets campaigning for Mr. Modi’s re-election.

    The main selling point for Modi is not communalism. It is economy. He has performed marvellously in reforming the economy of Gujarat, which thanks to his bold economic intiatives is doing very well.

  6. Jai — on 7th December, 2007 at 2:47 pm  

    Yes the riots that happened in 2002 are a blot on Modi’s record.

    As a wise man once said, “Apart from that, at least the trains ran on time”.

  7. Jai — on 7th December, 2007 at 2:47 pm  

    ^^I meant “wise” sarcastically, in case it needed clarification.

  8. Parvinder — on 7th December, 2007 at 3:01 pm  

    ‘But since then Modi has proved his mettle as an able administrator’…. so who cares if thousands of innocent people were butchered in 2002.

    The RSS is a fascist organisation modelled on Hitler’s Brown shirts and their role in the massacres is well documented:

    http://hrw.org/reports/2002/india/index.htm#TopOfPage

    The BJP and the rest of the Hindutva chauvinists have always been fractional at time. It’s in their nature as they are all fighting for power.
    Modi may have an image problem outside Gujarat, but in the state he is seen as someone who, to put it crudely, ‘put the Muslims in their place’.
    Just as Sikhs were made scapegoats in the 80s by the communal Congress (I) party, so are the Muslims of Gujarat of late. The only hope is that the younger generation of Indians break away from India’s shameful past. One hopes.

  9. Leon — on 7th December, 2007 at 3:02 pm  

    I’m beginning to see why Sunny once said he wanted to focus more on domestic politics, all this ‘back home politics’ makes for tedious reading at times…

  10. Sofia — on 7th December, 2007 at 3:41 pm  

    oh dear..a blot? oh so apart from all those deaths..he’s a thoroughly decent man…puhleez! try telling that to the people that lost family during the riots

  11. KSingh — on 7th December, 2007 at 7:24 pm  

    News items on Modi covered by the BBC

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7132034.stm

  12. Raju — on 7th December, 2007 at 9:28 pm  

    Political winds in India change like wild fires. The corrupt politicans use the uneducated poor masses to whip up hysteria trying to wipe out their percieved religious/national enemies (meaning less votes for their political opponents in elections).

    I’d personally like all UK Indian Congress party linked groups to be proscribed under the terrorism act, this would be just in light of their activies in 1984. The same should be done with BJP if found to be involved directly in carrying out state terrorism against innocent civilians.

    We need peoples justice movement, so that oversea’s state terrorism parties are rooted out and banned from raising funds aboard or their members blacklisted from entering the EU. Otherwise why are seperatist groups banned? Social justice should over ride economic interests.

  13. Desi Italiana — on 7th December, 2007 at 9:42 pm  

    Indy:

    “But since then Modi has proved his mettle as an able administrator and these days he enjoys strong support in the country and abroad.”

    “Country” and “abroad”? Like, who?

  14. Desi Italiana — on 7th December, 2007 at 9:53 pm  

    I’m so freaking tired of people bringing up Gujarat’s economy. Who the fuck cares? Do people have no effing humanity? There are thousands languishing in camps, a couple thousand have been killed, and the consequential scars of those events are going to stick around for generations to come. Somehow, people think that just because someone runs the economy well, we should look over the other “blots”. What a load of crap. People who feel this way should learn about the names “Shah of Iran” and “Mussolini” and their histories (learning the word “fascism” might also be beneficial here).

    “But since then Modi has proved his mettle as an able administrator and these days he enjoys strong support in the country and abroad.”

    Too bad Modi has not been an “able administrator” when it comes to executing justice and the rule of law.

  15. Sunny — on 8th December, 2007 at 1:50 am  

    Unemployment in Gujarat are record lows. Yes the riots that happened in 2002 are a blot on Modi’s record.

    That’s really funny… and sad, for reasons others have mentioned above.

  16. Indy — on 8th December, 2007 at 5:14 am  

    Modi bashing has become a habit with certain class of liberals. But 2002 was not the first time that religious riots happened in India. Riots have been happening in this country since 1947, in fact, there is one small riot every single day.

    Why is India unable to tackle the problem of religious riots? It is because of the Indian liberals, who are “weak” on law and order. The police machinery is entirely subservient to the political class, so the cops are not allowed to do their duty.

    The fact remains that there has not been a single riot in Gujarat after 2002. Plus the economy has done exceedingly well. The unemployment is at record lows. In fact, Gujarat under Modi has seen highest industrial investment as compared to all other Indian states.

    Statistics show that people from all parts of India are flocking to Gujarat in search of jobs, and most of the time they are able to find jobs. Modi has preformed an economic miracle in Gujarat.

  17. Indy — on 8th December, 2007 at 5:18 am  

    Judging by some of the comments on this particular blog, I have to say that there is lot of misconception in UK about the true nature of RSS.

    RSS is not a fascist organization. It is all about culture. They promote a certain way of life; you can disagree with the values that the RSS preaches, but when you disagree you should do so on basis of facts.

    The fact is that there is no evidence that RSS has ever been involved in any kind of religious riots. In fact, during the Gujarat earthquake, the RSS volunteers were the foremost in helping people of “all communities”.

  18. Desi Italiana — on 8th December, 2007 at 8:22 am  

    “RSS is not a fascist organization.”

    And George Bush did not invade Iraq.

  19. KSingh — on 8th December, 2007 at 8:25 am  

    The news coming out of India these days is getting more bizzare, on the one hand people known to have taken part in massacres are not prosecuted, on the other hand you have court asking to summon Hindu Gods in legal case.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7132124.stm

  20. Desi Italiana — on 8th December, 2007 at 8:40 am  

    “The fact is that there is no evidence that RSS has ever been involved in any kind of religious riots.”

    And there were WMD in Iraq!

  21. Desi Italiana — on 8th December, 2007 at 8:42 am  

    Ok, I’m serious now.

    “The fact is that there is no evidence that RSS has ever been involved in any kind of religious riots.”

    I don’t know whether you are being a troll, but if you aren’t, I think you might want to check this out:

    http://www.tehelka.com/story_main35.asp?filename=Ne031107gujrat_sec.asp

  22. KSingh — on 8th December, 2007 at 8:50 am  

    Thelka have list of massacres in India over the last 40 years, some have had little publicity. Interstingly the majority have been carried out by the so called secular Congress Party.

    http://www.tehelka.com/story_main35.asp?filename=Ne171107STRANDEDWHEELS.asp

  23. Desi Italiana — on 8th December, 2007 at 8:52 am  

    K Singh–

    That is bizarre, indeed:

    “Judge Singh sent out two notices to the deities, but they were returned as the addresses were found to be “incomplete”.

    This prompted him to put out adverts in local newspapers summoning the gods.

    “You failed to appear in court despite notices sent by a peon and later through registered post. You are herby directed to appear before the court personally”, Judge Singh’s notice said.”

    So sad.

  24. Desi Italiana — on 8th December, 2007 at 9:01 am  

    Events in which the RSS was involved in religious riots:

    http://www.ipcs.org/IRP03.pdf

  25. Indy — on 8th December, 2007 at 11:07 am  

    The question we need to ask ourselves is that “why do riots happen?”

    The 2002 riots might have happened even if some other govt. had been in power in Gujarat.

    The fact is that India’s political setup has in a way accepted riots as a legitimate means of airing political grievances.

    This has to change. Violence has no place in politics.

    Only way we can change the culture of violence is by reforming the police and the legislature. But the politicians are not allowing that.

    Lets not blame Mr. Modi. He is an innocent man and a very competent Chief Minister. He had nothing to do with the riots.

    We have to look at the larger picture in order to understand why riots keep happening in India.

  26. Indy — on 8th December, 2007 at 11:14 am  

    “Thelka have list of massacres in India over the last 40 years, some have had little publicity. Interstingly the majority have been carried out by the so called secular Congress Party.”
    —-

    K. Singh, has made a very valid point. All the so-called secular parties in India are engaged in the business of organizing riots when it suits their political game plan. They do it to frighten their voters into voting for them.

    It is the culture of Pseudo-secularism that is mostly to blame for the riots that happen in India. All Indian political parties are pseudo-secularist.

    The appease any particular community in order to turn them into a vote bank. This sort of thing has been going on for the last 60 years.

    But Mr. Modi comes as a breath of fresh air. He has completely transformed the culture of Gujarat. Though I am not the kind of person who is easily impressed by a politician, in this case I am really impressed by Modi’s magnificent economic record.

    He has single handedly rejuvenated Gujarat’s economy and culture. For that he deserves the credit.

  27. Kaalia — on 8th December, 2007 at 2:14 pm  

    If people really wanted to look at the facts and not get so into the heavily biased Indian Media then they will see irrefutable confirmation that it was a communal riot and a genocide or pogrom, this coming from the verdicts of Courts in post-Godhra riots cases.
    The Delhi based ‘secular’ media which the BBC merely prop up and copy made out as though the whole of gujarat was in flames. It concealed the fact that out of approx 19000 villages, 240 towns and 25 districts, the number of locations that were affected by riots was 60! Not a single man-day was lost in the 200 odd industrial townships by any industry in Gujarat because of the riots. School, college and university exams were conducted as per schedule during the period of riots.
    Tehelka and its sponsors have once again tried to vitiate communal harmony not only of Gujarat but of the entire country. People overwhelmingly believe that the Tehelka “sting operation” was sponsored by the Congress. If it is so, then this would be pretty much the third recent major attempt of the ‘secular’ Congress to stoke the communal flames in the country..remember Sachar Commission? who ordered Muslim headcount in the Army, thanks to the Army Chief that was firmly put down in its place! And remember the questioning the very existence of Ram? and now sponsoring Tehelka it made a despicable attempt to communalise the Indian Polity!

  28. Kaalia — on 8th December, 2007 at 2:16 pm  

    typo
    *that it was a communal riot and NOT a genocide or pogrom, this coming from the verdicts of Courts in post-Godhra riots

  29. Sunny — on 8th December, 2007 at 4:07 pm  

    Modi bashing has become a habit with certain class of liberals.

    Hmm… I wonder why that is? We liberals just lurrrrrve religious nuts who sanction are complicit in the murder of 1000s of people.

    But 2002 was not the first time that religious riots happened in India. Riots have been happening in this country since 1947, in fact, there is one small riot every single day.

    On the same scale? When gangs of men are allowed to roam around and rape women and mutilate them just because they happen to be of a different religion?

    It is because of the Indian liberals, who are “weak” on law and order.

    This is rather stupid… because its the politicians – whether Congress or BJP, who don’t follow the laws themselves. In India the politicians and other powerful people are the biggest crooks around.

    The fact remains that there has not been a single riot in Gujarat after 2002.

    So that makes it alright does it? I’ve never heard so much bakwaas on this site. You’re simply apologising for a mass-murderer.

  30. Jean-Luc Gascard — on 8th December, 2007 at 6:06 pm  

    Modi is more merde than mard, getting his rabid dogs to do the dirty for him.

  31. Raul — on 8th December, 2007 at 8:02 pm  

    On one side we have geriatrics with a fetish for baggie shorts recklessly exposing ordinary citizens to irreversible brain damage. When they are not flaunting legs that won’t look out of place in a bamboo plantation they are peddling victimhood spiced with self righteousness and resurrecting Indian pride by making routine forays with shovel to dig up some ancient glory. At the end of these ambition sapping escapades we have the hindu straitjacket so one of the the most corrupt and inhuman societies in the world can simultaneously pretend to be the most moral. How pathetic can it get. Wait.

    On the other side we have an equally bizzarre scenario with an illiterate and talentless wife of a former prime minister running a kitchen cabinet and hogging resources to preserve the legacy for her children.

    To sustain this high comedy we have fillers like riots and other niceties so Indians can remain humored about the possibilities.

  32. Desi Italiana — on 8th December, 2007 at 9:21 pm  

    “But 2002 was not the first time that religious riots happened in India. Riots have been happening in this country since 1947, in fact, there is one small riot every single day.”

    Yes, and the RSS has been involved in quite a few of them starting post 1947. Did you even look at the chronology of riots in India that I linked to?

    But in the end, it probably won’t make any difference. All I’ve read in your comments here is outright bullshit, excuses, and apologies.

  33. sakshi — on 9th December, 2007 at 4:54 am  

    “This prompted him to put out adverts in local newspapers summoning the gods.

    “You failed to appear in court despite notices sent by a peon and later through registered post. You are herby directed to appear before the court personally”, Judge Singh’s notice said.”

    So sad.”

    Desi Italiana, I think you are taking that story too seriously. IMO, the judge is just having a bit of fun. To me it seems typical of the type of humor in east UP/Bihar.

  34. Indy — on 9th December, 2007 at 6:27 am  

    Sunny,

    I do empathize with the views that your comments seem to portray.

    But the fact is that in the last three years alone about 6000 Indians have died due to terrorist violence.

    And people of “one minority” community have committed the murders of all these 6000 people only.

    Do know what killings on such mass scale do? They turn people cruel. The citizens of the country see that 6000 of their innocent civilians have been murdered and the govt. is totally ineffective in apprehending and punishing the religious maniacs.

    That is when they take law into their own hands and riots happen. In these riots it is not the terrorists but the innocent civilians that get killed. It is such a sad state of affairs.

  35. Indy — on 9th December, 2007 at 6:34 am  

    Only way to stop riots from happening is to have a strong police and investigative agency. The political leaders and their foot soldiers who indulge in riots should be identified and prosecuted under the law.

    But that is not happening, what we are seeing in India is wild allegations, but the law is not working at all.

    We can’t prosecute Modi just because some people feel that he has something to do with the riots. Evidence is required. Where is the evidence that can stand in the court of law?

    There have been riots before this, but in none of them the culprits have been arrested.

  36. KSingh — on 9th December, 2007 at 10:01 am  

    This is not part of the topic title , but interesting to see what the UK Asian MP duo Keith Vaz and Virendra Sharma have been up to.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Row_over_UKs_Labour_Party_MPs_support_to_LTTE/articleshow/2607223.cms

    Row over UK’s Labour Party MPs support to LTTE
    8 Dec 2007, 1942 hrs IST,RASHMEE ROSHAN LALL,TNN

    LONDON: A row has broken out over the attendance of three of Britain’s governing Labour Party MPs, including the high-profile Goan-origin Keith Vaz and Ealing Southall’s new representative Virendra Sharma, at a several-thousand-strong expatriate Tamil event to pay their respects to those who died in the “Tamil liberation struggle”.

    The Sri Lankan High Commission here has protested at Vaz’s attendance, describing it as an act that shows he is “partisan to a proscribed terrorist group”. Vaz currently chairs the influential parliamentary Home Affairs Select Committee, which has oversight of Britain’s counter-terrorism laws. The LTTE, referred to by the Sri Lankan authorities, is proscribed in Britain. Under the UK Terrorism Act, the Tigers are banned from raising funds, holding property or operating in any form and it is an offence to glorify their activities, or incite others to support them.

    The Sri Lankan High Commission claimed the event was organised by apologists for terrorists, and more particularly, by “a front organisation of a terrorist group for fundraising and propaganda purposes”.

    But according to Tamilnet, which describes itself as “a news and feature service that focuses on providing reliable and accurate information on issues concerning the Tamil people in Sri Lanka”, the “over 25,000 expatriate Tamils in Britain…gathered to mark ‘Tamil Remembrance Day’ to pay their respects to those who had died in the Tamil liberation struggle. The event (was) organised by Tamil National Remembrance Foundation, an association of families of Tamils who had fallen in the Tamil struggle”.

    Tamilnet said the annual event, which saw its largest attendance ever, was particularly relevant in the context of the “resumed conflict in Sri Lanka”.

    The gathering row over the attendance of high-profile British Asian MPs came after it became clear LTTE leader V Prabhakaran’s so-called ‘Heroes Day’ address was broadcast live on large screens across the south-east London venue, with Vaz, Sharma and another Labour MP Joan Ryan in the audience.

    The Sri Lankan authorities are understood to object to the MPs’ presence at an event used by Prabhakaran to call for “the entire Tamil-speaking world to rise up for the liberation of Tamil Eelam” and praise the LTTE’s use of suicide bombers with the words: “The immeasurable dedication and sacrifice of our heroes is delivering a message to the Sinhala nation.”

    But Vaz, who jointly chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tamils with Liberal Democarat MP Simon Hughes, who sent a message to the rally, insisted he was “not really interested in (the contents of Mr Prabhakaran’s speech). I was there to deliver a message from the all-party group, which is what I do. I was there to deliver a message from my constituents. I have many Tamil people in my constituency.”

    He and his party colleague Ryan said they had been unaware Prabhakaran was due to speak, a defence described as ludicrous by observers who said the LTTE hierarchy’s rallying calls are standard procedure for a rally such as this. At every previous ‘Heroes Day’ commemorated in the UK, Prabhakaran’s speech has been televised to rapt audiences.

  37. Kaalia — on 9th December, 2007 at 11:33 am  

    Modi”s Solid Response to EC!
    Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday replied to the notice issued to him by the Election Commission over his remarks about the Sohrabuddin encounter killing case.

    Here is the transcript of the letter.

    Sir,

    I am in receipt of your notice dated 6th December 2007 wherein on the basis of the media reports and a complaint dated 5th December 2007 filed by Teesta Setalvad, I am alleged to have made an open exhortation to violence and misused of religion for political ends. The Election Commission has further stated that by linking the name of Sohrabuddin to terrorism in my speech amounts to indulging in activity which may aggravate existing differences, creating mutual hatred and causing tension between different communities. I deny this charge in its entirety.

    1. The Commission has acted on the basis of a complaint which alleges that my stand is contrary to what the State of Gujarat has stated in its affidavit before the Supreme Court. The basis of the complaint appears to be a report dated 5th December 2007 of the Times of India by one Shri Prashant Dayal. The relevant extract in the Times of India reads as under:

    Modi��.you tell what should be done to Sohrabuddin?
    People at the rally: Kill him, kill him.
    Modi: Well, that is what I did. And I did what was necessary.”

    The last sentence of the report of the Times of India has generated controversy in the whole nation. Television Channels and News Papers have made comments to the effect that I have stated that ‘Sohrabuddin got what he deserved’, or that ‘it is a confessional statement by me’ or that ‘Modi has justified a murder’. All other news papers cuttings which the Commission has taken into account are dated 6th December 2007, which do not report my speech delivered on 4th December, 2007 but are comments inspired by false imputation in the Times of India. This last sentence is not reflected in the CD as having been used by me.

    2. ‘The Statesman’ dated 6th December 2007 quoted me as having said �
    “he (Sohrabuddin) has got what he deserved”: The Hindustan Times of 6th December quoted me as saying “Well then, that’s it.” I had on 6th December 2007, immediately after receiving Election Commission’s notice requested that I may be supplied copy of the CD of the speech and also various inputs which have influenced the issuance of the notice. I have since received the copy of CD on the evening of 7th December 2007 at 5.45 p.m. I find none of the above statements are contained in my speech as recorded in the CD. The E.C. notice is issued on the basis of unverified and false media reports.

    3 As I am also involved in a campaign I am sending this as a preliminary reply, which I am sure would satisfy the Election Commission with regard to the contents of my speech. Before I answer specifics raised in the notice and the complaint, I wish to state that India is governed by Rule of law and Constitution. I am entitled to my right of free speech. Free and fair election involves a debate on the political issues in the market place of politics. When statements are made by political opponents, others are entitled to reply to them. The tone and content of the statement must necessarily adhere to the Model Code of Conduct. I wish to categorically state that I regard the Election Commission as a constitutional authority under an obligation to ensure free and fair election which will also defend my right of free speech against those who have started hate campaign against me.

    4. On 1st December 2007, AICC President Mrs. Sonia Gandhi [Images] visited Gujarat and referred to me by suggesting those who are ruling Gujarat are “liars, dishonest and merchants of fear and death (Maut-ke-Soudagar).” On 3rd December 2007, AICC General Secretary Mr. Digvijay Singh visited Gujarat and referred to it as a State which has unleashed “Hindu terrorism.” The newspapers reported these statements extensively. Separate complaints with regard to the violation of the Code of Conduct were sent to the Election Commission by the Gujarat Unit of BJP. No action has been taken against those responsible for these statements by the Election Commission. I am sure the Election Commission would at least now proceed to take action on those reports.

    5. One of the critical issues in our country is the problem of terrorism. India has lost the lives almost 90,000 of innocent citizens and security personnel in the last 17 years to terror. In the last four years, 5,619 innocents have been killed by the terrorist. The Government of Gujarat has a strong policy against terrorism. I believe that UPA and Congress party is indulging in Vote Bank politics and have sent soft signals on terrorism. My party and I have repeatedly made these charges against the Congress Party. In Gujarat only one life has been lost in the last four years through terror. This is a result of our strong policy against terrorism. The Nation and the people of Gujarat are entitled to witness a fair debate on terrorism. If any of the view point is censored or not permitted it will be interference in the right of free speech. Our Constitution and the election commission’s obligation to conduct free and fair election will not extend to preventing me from expressing my strong views against terrorism..

    6 My speech, therefore, has to be read entirely in this context. It was a political response to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi referring to me as those who rule the Gujarat as a ‘Mout-ke-saudagar’. Surely it cannot be policy of the Election commission first to ignore the violation of the Code of Conduct in her statement and then censor my political response to that statement. I have gone through my speech on the CD supplied. It is merely a response to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi calling me “Mout-ka-Saudagar”.

    7. This part of my speech was entirely against terrorism. I criticized the Congress President for calling me a ‘Maut Ka Saudagar�. I responded that the “Maut Ka Saudagar” are all those who attacked parliament. It is the Congress party which is delaying the execution of the guilty accused. I have made a reference to the Sohrabuddin’s case and mentioned the allegations against him. I have accused the Congress of suggesting that I have engineered a fake encounter. I said that I am open for any action on this count. At no point of time I have either justified the specific encounter of Sohrabuddin’s case, nor have I used the specific inculpatery sentences used in the Times of India Report. It is clear that my comment is a part of my speech where on several occasions I have put questions to the audience which the audience has answered. It is my political response to Smt. Gandhi’s allegation that I am Maut-ka-Sodagar. I have replied back alleging that the Congress party is helping those who have spread terrorism in the country. It is clear that Times of India’s article which began this controversy, invented my comment to the effect “Modi: Well that is what I did. And I did what was necessary”. The CD clearly indicates that this sentence was an invention of author and not the orator. The comments in the media that ‘Modi justified murder’ or that ‘he made confessional statement’ as being privy to murder or that Modi declared in the meeting that ‘Sohrabuddin got what he deserved’ do not find a mention in the CD. These are journalistic inventions intended to engineer a ‘Hate Modi’ campaign and not evidenced in the CD supplied by the Election Commission. My criticism in the media was concocted and engineered by this ‘Hate Modi’ Campaign. No where in my speech have I explicitly referred to the religion of any person. I have spoken against terrorism. It is not my speech but the complaint which assumes terrorism is linked to a religion.

    8. Am I to be prevented from giving my point that terrorism will not be allowed on the soil of Gujarat or that Congress is soft on the terrors and thereby helping “Maut-ka-Sodagar” If Election Commission imposes any such regulation, it would offend our constitutional values and my right of free speech. At no stage I have controverted the affidavit filed by the Gujarat Government in the Supreme Court of India. I have already clarified my position that I do not support fake encounters. Encounters can occur but there should be no fake encounters. I have nowhere tried to prejudice any pending litigation. I am fully committed to the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct by the Election Commission and shall comply with it. I believe that the Election Commission should not be misled by motivated media reports which are based on falsehood.

    I, therefore, request the Election Commission to withdraw this notice.

  38. Edsa — on 9th December, 2007 at 6:58 pm  

    I wonder whether bloggers are aware of the Statement On The Gujarat Carnage 2002 issued by ‘Concerned Citizens’ on 31 October, 2007 [See Countercurrents.org]

    The recent Tehelka expose of the “Gujarat riots” of 2002, demonstrate very starkly that these so called “spontaneous riots” were in fact

    mass murder, loot and mayhem

    orchestrated and organized by the top echelons of the Gujarat units of the VHP, the Bajrang Dal, and the BJP with the full connivance and complicity of the Gujarat government headed by Narendra Modi.

    The Tehelka tapes show senior functionaries of these organizations and of the government bragging and confessing to their having committed and participated in committing heinous crimes like

    brutal mass murder, rape, burning, looting

    .
    Many of them claim and boast about how Narendra Modi explicitly encouraged the carnage and told the killers and rioters that they were being given a free rein of three days. These people also claim how several senior police officials not only aided and abetted these killers by their actions and inaction but in many cases themselves participated in the carnage.

    These senior functionaries who boast about having committed these crimes also claim how Modi provided shelter to these people and even got inconvenient judges changed to ensure that these mass murderers got out on bail.
    They also boast about having successfully subverted the integrity of the Nanavati Commission. In short,

    the tapes reveal a horrific state of affairs in Gujarat

    .
    It becomes imperative that a special investigating team be immediately constituted to investigate the involvement of Narendra Modi and other senior functionaries. This SIT would be one of the most important investigations ever undertaken in this country.

    But most immediately, the persons shown on tape confessing to having committed crimes must be immediately arrested and those of them who are serving officials, must be placed under suspension.

    We therefore call upon the Central government and the Supreme Court to immediately take the above steps. What is at stake is not merely the survival of Constitutional values and the rule of law but the survival of civilisation itself in this country.

    Signed by:
    Admiral R.H.Tahiliani (Former Navy Chief, Chairman Transparency International,India)
    S.P. Shukla (Former Finance Secy, GOI)
    Shanti Bhushan (Former Law Minister)
    Muchkund Dubey (Former Foreign Secretary, GOI)
    Ramaswamy Iyer (Former Water Resources Secy, GOI)
    E.A.S. Sarma (Former Power Secretary, GOI)
    B. George Verghese (Senior Journalist)
    Madhu Bhaduri (Former Ambassador, GOI)
    Medha Patkar (Social Activist)
    Aruna Roy (Social Activist, Former member NAC)
    Arundhati Roy (Writer, Social Activist)
    Arvind Kejriwal (RTI Activist, Magsaysay awardee)
    Sandeep Pande (Social Activist, Magsaysay awardee)
    Major Gen. S.G. Vombatkere (Retd. Mysore)
    Prof. Amit Bhaduri (Former Professor of Economics, JNU)
    Prof. K.M.Shrimali (Dept of History, Delhi University)
    Arun Kumar (Professor Economics, JNU)
    Prof. Girijesh Pant (JNU)
    Prof. Pramod Yadava (Professor, Dean, JNU)
    Prof. Sujata Patel (Dept. of Sociology, Uni of Pune)
    Prof. Achin Vinayak (Professor, Third World Academy)
    Nasir Tayabji (Director, Centre for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, Jamia Milia Islamia)
    Jean Dreze (Visiting Professor, Allahabad University)
    Arshad Alam (Centre for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, Jamia Milia Islamia)
    Shailesh Gandhi (Convenor, NCPRI)
    Vikram Lal (Director, Common Cause)
    Shabnam Hashmi (Social Activist, ANHAD)
    Dunu Roy (Social Activist and Director, Hazard Centre)
    Ravi Chopra (Director, People’s Science Institute)
    N. Bhaskar Rao (Director, Centre for media studies)
    Dr. Ajay Mehra (Director, Centre for public affairs)

    etc etc

  39. Chris Stiles — on 10th December, 2007 at 12:50 am  

    Modi has been implicated in the 2002 massacre of Muslims in Gujarat, yet still retains his post and much of his popularity.

    The word ‘yet’ is out of place there, he retains his popularity primarily *because* he has been implicated.

    And whilst people in this thread have accused Congress of being behind Tehelka, various Congress figures have accused the BJP of being behind the Tekelka investigation (any reminder of Modi’s links to the pogram could lead to an increase in his popularity).

    You don’t necessarily have to believe either of them to conclude that they are all a bunch of lying crooks.

  40. Desi Italiana — on 10th December, 2007 at 4:50 am  

    “Do know what killings on such mass scale do? They turn people cruel. The citizens of the country see that 6000 of their innocent civilians have been murdered and the govt. is totally ineffective in apprehending and punishing the religious maniacs.

    That is when they take law into their own hands and riots happen. In these riots it is not the terrorists but the innocent civilians that get killed. It is such a sad state of affairs.”

    Indy, your comments reek of being an apologist. Apart from the fact that you are totally contradicting yourself in your comments.

  41. Indy — on 10th December, 2007 at 5:38 am  

    Desi Italiana,

    I am not an apologist for the riots. In fact, I would like to tell you that though I am a Hindu, half of my family is Muslim, through marriages.

    I am as shocked about the riots as anyone one else on this blog. But we need to take a practical view at the riots, 2002 was not the first time that riots happened in India.

    Every four or five years India has one major riot in which thousands die. Why? Lets stop hounding Modi and take a coherent view of the situation. Modi became a popular figure only after 2000, but riots have been happening in India since 1947 when we became independent.

    The central govt. policies are primarily responsible for the riots.

  42. Desi Italiana — on 10th December, 2007 at 5:47 am  

    Indy:

    “I am as shocked about the riots as anyone one else on this blog. But we need to take a practical view at the riots, 2002 was not the first time that riots happened in India.”

    You are not “shocked” because you keep arguing for a “practical view” and absolving Modi and the RSS of any responsibility, even when several commentators have linked to numerous pieces giving evidence to such.

    You keep saying that communalism is a problem in India that goes beyond Modi. So your proposal is to stop “hounding” Modi. Apparently, we just let perpetrators of communalism, riots, and murder to free because the problem goes beyond the individuals who carry out atrocities.

    No offense, but that is the most idiotic solution I have ever heard. What kind of fucking logic are you arguing for?

  43. Desi Italiana — on 10th December, 2007 at 5:48 am  

    “I am not an apologist for the riots.”

    Actually, you are. All of your comments point to this idea.

  44. Parvinder — on 10th December, 2007 at 11:51 am  

    #25: ‘Lets not blame Mr. Modi. He is an innocent man and a very competent Chief Minister. He had nothing to do with the riots.’

    Well Haresh Bhatt, the BJP legislator from Godhra differs:
    “He (Modi) had given us three days time…to do whatever we could. He said he would not give us time after that. He said this openly. After three days he asked (us) to stop and everything came to a halt,” He went on to say that Modi had come to the locality and had thanked the rioters saying “Aap dhanya ho” (you have done a great job).

    These include piercing out of a foetus from the womb of a woman with a sword and killing of Muslims hiding in a gutter. Some of the accused in the Gulbarga Society massacre in Ahmedabad, explained how former MP Ehsan Jaffri of the Congress was hacked limb-by-limb and burnt. The expose by Tehelka also contains details based of how dozens of Muslims hiding in a pit and clinging were doused with kerosene and burnt alive.

    According to Tehelka’s editor Tarun Tejpal: “For the first time, this investigation brings confirmation that the murder of Muslims was not a spontaneous swelling of anger but a planned genocide strategised and executed by top functionaries of the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), the VHP, the Bajrang Dal and state authorities, with the knowledge and sanction of Modi.”

    Yes, riots have taken place before 2002 and most have been organised by politicians of both parties. Until they are held to account, these murders will keep on occuring.

  45. Shin Bet — on 10th December, 2007 at 12:36 pm  

    Is all this talk of ‘genocide’ not over-exaggeration?

    It was only 1000 people – and, as usual, Muslims started this barbarity.

    Not by burning sixty Hindus to death in Gujarat, but by invading the sub-continent on a religious pretext in the first place.

    I mean, a foreign entity entering, raping, pillaging and then settling is bound to result in an adverse reaction from the natives. Just look at Iraq.

  46. Sid — on 10th December, 2007 at 1:19 pm  

    It’s funny how a lot of Indians expect and demand complete assimilation and rights as immigrants to the UK but regard their own minorities (who have been there for centuries) as foreigners.

  47. sonia — on 10th December, 2007 at 1:25 pm  

    couldn’t be bothered to read this thread.
    as if there is much care about human life in india anyway, look at the coverage, it is always along “communal” lines…e.g. X group killed 1000 members of Y group! focus on the “group” affected, not on the individual human life lost. Or the scores of human lives trodden down by those “within” their group – oh not much coverage then, because it wouldn’t be a political football would it.

    that makes me sick – because that is the whole problem still with the indian mindset. “vhich group are you from!!”

    and as far as i can see, that mindset too often follows indian diaspora about where it goes. “oh those foreigners are oppressing US! How DARE they insult our cultural group! We’re so f***ing obsessed with group and maintaing honour and identity of the group that’s the only time we ever think about “human rights” – in that context.

    disgusting

  48. sonia — on 10th December, 2007 at 1:27 pm  

    as far as i can see – that is the bigger problem that faces India today, not one mr. modi shodi somewhere.

  49. sonia — on 10th December, 2007 at 1:35 pm  

    “RSS is not a fascist organization. It is all about culture.”

    I don’t know anything about the RSS, nor am i claiming to now. but the two statements above do not need to be mutually exclusive. you can be a fascist organisation obsessed with culture.
    ( e.g. the Nazis who were obsessed with a certain interpretation of German culture)

    the RSS could well be about culture, and go about their business in a fascistic sort of way. they might not – like i say – i know nothing about them – but they might well do.

  50. Shin Bet — on 10th December, 2007 at 1:39 pm  

    sonia

    I usually always agree with you. But ponder the following:

    Your adversity to ‘group identity’ has led you to call for ultra-individualism as an alternative ‘identity’.

    Do you not think that this will essentially lead to anarchy? And that some sort of group cohesive identity – and therefore structure/laws/governance based on that collectivism – is needed to protect the individual?

    It is, surely, a necessary ‘evil’.

  51. Sid — on 10th December, 2007 at 1:53 pm  

    ah, Shin Bet is Muzumdar. Thought as much.

    Who else comes out with justifying the killing of Gujarati Muslims:
    “It was only 1000 people – and, as usual, Muslims started this barbarity.” whilst, elsewhere, crying about the treatment of Sikhs in India.

    Communitarianists are always represented by the thickest, most stupidest elements of society. No change here.

  52. sonia — on 10th December, 2007 at 2:05 pm  

    necessary evil heheh, privileging some individuals over others, so of course some individuals will see that as necessary! that wouldn’t be such a “weird” thing in itself, i can understand that, though i may not approve. i find it funny though, when people fail to realise that some individuals are effectively, acting for their own betterment, and pretending it is for the “groups” betterment. what a load of tosh, and too many people seem to fall for it. if we’re going to live our lives this way, at least let’s be bl**dy honest about it. i haven’t got any solutions, but i do think we can stop deluding ourselves that our “groups” have our individual interest at heart. i am perhaps a cynical misanthrope, but let’s call a spade a spade.

    of course you decide for yourself what you believe or dont believe. (each individual makes their own decisions at the end of the day, lives their life in their own head, has to do what makes sense to them, because NO ONE ELSE Is going to do it for you.)

  53. sonia — on 10th December, 2007 at 2:10 pm  

    and shin bet, there are many ways to understand “collectivism” and many ways to theorise “governance”. We have only stumbled across a few so far, and personally this is why i’m so anti- the left/right bipolar – because it reduces that variety and complexity of possibilities of understanding collectivism, and governance – to a linear set of options , which actually have more in common with each other, than not. It is effectively, still limited to the same paradigm.

    as far as i can see we have only so far come across top-down coercive mechanisms ( including the ones we are in now, don’t fool yourself that the nation-state isn’t a “collective” of some sort) which depending on who you the individual are – can be absolutely hippy-dippy wonderful, or if you’re the wrong person, completely rubbish. That – i should have thought – was obvious- to any idiot.

  54. Sid — on 10th December, 2007 at 2:22 pm  

    obvious to any idiot but obviously not obvious to every idiot. :)

  55. Deep Singh — on 10th December, 2007 at 2:30 pm  

    Sid @ 46.

    I believe the Indian constitution has caveats to allow for Islamic personal law to be implemented. This clearly would be a strong indication of not viewing its minorities as foreigners, but actively allowing for integration.

    Indy @ 5.

    The RSS stance is quite clearly one that leads to potential facist issues, namely that it’s own definition of the term “Hindu” as a geo-political one, excludes Christians and Muslims and it is here that one can see where the issues begin.

    As for it being a cultural entity, please tell me how the RSS khaki shorts and brown caps uniform and its organisational make-up reflect anything remotely belonging to Hindustani culture and don’t even get me started on its cheap revisionism of history with respect to other Indian traditions such as Sikh, Jains and Buddhists.

  56. Shin Bet — on 10th December, 2007 at 2:39 pm  

    sonia

    I didn’t mean having a group identiy as a means of oppression (ie Islam). What I was referring to was, to use your example, the nation state. It is only by dint of being British (and coming under the distinction of the British legal system) that British citizens are protected, via law, from murderers (in theory). The collective group identity is British, and all it entails.

    Take that away – the law included – and you get anarchy.

    Sid

    Grow up.

  57. Shin Bet — on 10th December, 2007 at 2:41 pm  

    Indian constitution has caveats to allow for Islamic personal law

    Yes, apparently this means a Muslim man can marry his son’s wife, nine-year-old girls and have an array of wives.

    Who said Muslims get a raw deal in India?

  58. Shin Bet — on 10th December, 2007 at 2:42 pm  

    *distinction should read duristiction.

  59. sonia — on 10th December, 2007 at 3:05 pm  

    57 :-)

    shin bet, i didn’t say having “laws” or some kind of mutual agreement was a bad thing. its about the relationship of the individual to the whole, that’s the point, and what kind of relationship it is.

    you me and sid could agree to behave ourselves and agree to some simple rules. so “collectively” we have some rules. now if the 3 of us find the “collective” rules aren’t actually working for the 3 of us, then we might be able to agree with each other to change them. That would be a flexible feedback sort of system. Then say – ( and this usually happens when the group gets bigger and “nominates” an abstract identity -e.g. Pickled Politics) there are 10 of us, hanging out, and we make some simple rules again, but now we call it the PP rules, which cannot be “re-agreed” even if it rubbishly affects -say 9 of us – or even all of us. That might be because we’ve “institutionalised” the notion of this PP entity to such an extent, that it now exists beyond the individuals who are actually forming it, and the agreements between those people. Perhaps you see what i’m getting at, but perhaps you’re not. Don’t worry – it seems to escape most people.

  60. Shin Bet — on 10th December, 2007 at 3:11 pm  

    sonia

    I understand; it’s not that difficult. But you are simply arguing for flexible ‘group laws’ then, rather than a break with group identity per se.

  61. Indy — on 10th December, 2007 at 3:15 pm  

    “I don’t know anything about the RSS, nor am i claiming to now. but the two statements above do not need to be mutually exclusive. you can be a fascist organisation obsessed with culture.”
    —————————————-
    Sonia,

    I must congratulate you on your wonderful style of wordplay.

    But leaving smart quips aside, I have to tell you that like most of us you too have a misconception about the nature of RSS.

    I can assure you that RSS is not a communal organization. This is an organization that has never advocated any sort of violence on minorities.

    The only agenda for the RSS is a cultural agenda. The people who are part of this organization are like you and me – they are people who work as engineers, doctors, journalists, scientists, cab drivers, farmers, shopkeepers, etc. And a part of their free time they devote to devising new ways of taking the country forward.

    No nation can ever progress unless it has a strong cultural base rooted in its ancient history. RSS seeks to create such a cultural base. What is wrong in that? Even US and UK have cultural organizations, so why should India be denied its right to have one.

  62. Indy — on 10th December, 2007 at 3:15 pm  

    “I don’t know anything about the RSS, nor am i claiming to now. but the two statements above do not need to be mutually exclusive. you can be a fascist organisation obsessed with culture.”
    —————————————-
    Sonia,

    I must congratulate you on your wonderful style of wordplay.

    But leaving smart quips aside, I have to tell you that like most of us you too have a misconception about the nature of RSS.

    I can assure you that RSS is not a communal organization. This is an organization that has never advocated any sort of violence on minorities.

    The only agenda for the RSS is a cultural agenda. The people who are part of this organization are like you and me – they are people who work as engineers, doctors, journalists, scientists, cab drivers, farmers, shopkeepers, etc. And a part of their free time they devote to devising new ways of taking the country forward.

    No nation can ever progress unless it has a strong cultural base rooted in its ancient history. RSS seeks to create such a cultural base. What is wrong in that? Even US and UK have cultural organizations, so why should India be denied its right to have one.

  63. Indy — on 10th December, 2007 at 3:17 pm  

    One more thing, for the right info on what the RSS is all about please log on to their website: http://www.rss.org

  64. Indy — on 10th December, 2007 at 3:27 pm  

    Deep Singh,

    RSS is a huge organization; it might be having millions of members. It is possible that few of the members could be those advocating views that are inimical to civilized society.

    But because of one bad fish you cannot call the whole pond bad. There are other fishes in the pond. I can only talk about the version of RSS that I have witnessed through books by some of their writers like Arun Shourie and others.

    The fact remains that India is today poised on the cusp of change, we are a rapidly growing economy, in the face of such massive change, the country does need a cultural organization that is firmly rooted in its past. RSS serves that need.

  65. Deep Singh — on 10th December, 2007 at 3:28 pm  

    Shin Bet @ 58.

    I will leave the discussion of finer aspects of Islamic Personal Law to those more qualified to comment, however as an observer, I very much doubt that having the legal capacity to “marry one’s son’s wife” and other such seeming absurdities are unique to such a system.

    As per “marrying nine-year-old girls”, please could you back this statement up, since I would imagine laws governing paedophilia would outlaw this – I stand to be corrected.

    On the subject of polygamy, this is one example of where Islamic personal law will differ from Hindustani law (which governs Hindus, Sikhs, Jains etc) alongside matters such as Divorce (which only Islam comments upon from a religious aspect and other traditions are either silent upon, hence defaulting to secular/mainstream law or disapproving).

  66. Shin Bet — on 10th December, 2007 at 3:40 pm  

    My comments were tongue in cheek. In case it escaped you, I was mocking Islamic personal law which, by-the-by, allows for polygamy, paedophilia and daughter in-law marriage.

  67. Deep Singh — on 10th December, 2007 at 3:48 pm  

    Indy @ 64. stated:

    “The fact remains that India is today poised on the cusp of change, we are a rapidly growing economy, in the face of such massive change, the country does need a cultural organization that is firmly rooted in its past. RSS serves that need.”

    Indy, I will reiterate my earlier point, please eludicate “how the RSS khaki shorts and brown caps uniform and its organisational make-up reflect anything remotely belonging to Hindustani culture?”

    Also, how does this model of culture is in any way “firmly rooted in its past”?

  68. Indy — on 10th December, 2007 at 4:17 pm  

    Deep Singh @ 67

    Deep Singh,

    I think you want to say that the RSS khaki shorts and brown caps uniform are developed from watching how the British rulers of India used to dress.

    But this is a very obvious issue that often gets raised by many commentators. Majority of Indians dress up in Western dresses these days, so what is the harm if RSS volunteers too dress up in khaki shorts and caps “when they are exercising” in the field.

    It is only when they are exercising (building their body and mind) that the volunteers are required to wear shorts, and after that they can dress up in any kind of dress that they like.

    In fact, dress has very little to do with RSS, those people are mainly concerned with building the body and mind of the citizens so that they can take the country forward.

    People of all religions and all parts of the world are welcome in the RSS family. Just come and listen to what they have to say. Read their books and then decide for yourself, if you want to stay or not.

  69. Jai — on 10th December, 2007 at 4:31 pm  

    The central govt. policies are primarily responsible for the riots.

    I would have thought that the individuals who believed that killing innocent members of other religions was a morally acceptable way to behave were “primarily responsible for the riots”, ie. the people directly involved in the murders.

  70. Deep Singh — on 10th December, 2007 at 4:51 pm  

    Indy,

    I have read RSS literature and am familiar with their rhetoric.

    Your suggestion that “Majority of Indians dress up in Western dresses these days, so what is the harm if RSS volunteers too dress up in khaki shorts and caps “when they are exercising” in the field” holds very little water.

    Here’s why:

    - The majority of Indians are not trying to recreate some sort of fantasy revival of a long lost culture that even they are unaware of (as the RSS clearly themselves), instead they are more concerned with economic viability and progress. RSS on the other hand, in your own terms are a “cultural organization that is firmly rooted in its (India’s) past”, matters such national dress and so forth would appear to be an integral part of such matters?

    - The exercises done by RSS at their Shakas and Akharas invariably are weight lifting and karate, which are preferred over “traditional” Hindustani physical cultures such as Khushti, Kalaripat, Variyam etc. Again, if indeed RSS was simply a ‘cultural’ oragnisation seeking to bring forth the great Indian culture, then why the need for Karate? There are many Indian martial arts that are dying out – surely a ‘cultural organisation’ would like to see these revived and maintained?

    Leaving aside these “obvious issue that often gets raised by many commentators”, let’s move onto the crux of the matter.

    RSS bodies such as the VHP are clearly fascist and have been accused of several riots in the country, notably their alleged involvement in the Gujarat riots in 2002 made by Human rights Watch.

    VHP leader Ashok Singhal, Praveen Togadia had justified the riots saying it “had the blessings of lord Rama”.

    Likewise, the VHP youth wing the Balrang Dal (lit. Monkey Army) attacked and killed a missionary (Graham Staines) and his two sons (aged 10 and 8), who had been working with leprosy sufferers for a period of 34 years. They were burnt to death in their car.

    The issue was the Bajrang Dal’s denouncement of the Christian missionary, converting the poor to Christianty and “turning them against Hindus”.

    Despite the Bajrang Dal spokespeople asserting that they were not involved in the incident, subsequent investigations revealed that the murders were carried out by a Dara Singh as well as 12 other perpetrators, who were active members of the Bajrang Dal.

    The VHP leader, Praveen Togadia, was arrested in April 2003 after distributing tridents to Bajrang Dal activists in Ajmer defying ban and prohibitory orders. Togadia asserted that the coming Assembly polls in the Indian state of Rajasthan would be fought on the issue of tridents and attacked the ruling Congress Party for “placating” Muslims for electoral gains. He expressed satisfaction at the publicity received due to the incident.

    I am aware of the ‘good’ work of the RSS (helping Dalits and protecting certain minorities – all of which tend to be perceived as Hindu by their definition), however as I have highlighted elsewhere (are Muslims the new blacks), the caste debate in India is a complex one and heavily manipulated by political bodies, moreover the underlying issue is non-Hindus (i.e. Muslims, Christians etc, by the RSS definition of Hindu) are clearly targeted by their activities.

  71. Sid — on 10th December, 2007 at 4:52 pm  

    You’d think that, wouldn’t you Jai. Any sensible person would think so. But obviously by these communitarian groupthinkers (such as those who are busy justifying the Gujarat killings on this thread).

  72. Sid — on 10th December, 2007 at 5:02 pm  

    typo:

    But obviously *NOT* by these communitarian groupthinkers

  73. Parvinder — on 10th December, 2007 at 5:07 pm  

    ‘But because of one bad fish you cannot call the whole pond bad.’… Indy, is Mr Golwalkar, past leader of the RSS one of those?

    Golwalkar supported Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. He openly supported the anti-semitic policies of Nazi Germany towards German-Jews, openly supported Hitler’s violent invasion of other sovereign territories, lauded Fascist Italy and said these were models which India could learn and profit by:

    “German race pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the semitic Races – the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has shown how well nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by.” (Golwalkar, We, or our nationhood defined, Bharat Publications, Nagpur, [1939] 1944, page 37.)

    In the 1950s, even when the horrors of Nazi Germany were known across the world, the RSS called these ideas of Golwalkar an “unassailable doctrine of nationhood” Golwalkar also stated that in India, minorities deserved no rights whatsoever, not even any citizen’s rights. Minorities could “live only as outsiders, bound by all the codes and conventions of the Nation, at the sufferance of the Nation and deserving of no special protection, far less any privilege or rights.

    Now I know where they get their khaki shorts and brown shirts from.

  74. Sid — on 10th December, 2007 at 5:14 pm  

    Deep:
    I believe the Indian constitution has caveats to allow for Islamic personal law to be implemented. This clearly would be a strong indication of not viewing its minorities as foreigners, but actively allowing for integration.

    I’m referring to Muzumdar’s (nee Shin Bet) comment in #45 where he is comparing Indian Muslims to US invaders of Iraq, and thereby justifying their massacre in Gujarat in 2002. He’s suggesting Indian Muslims are foreigners whilst he’s benefitting from immigration laws in the UK. Pretty darn shameless but wholly representative of many Indians in the UK.

  75. Shin Bet — on 10th December, 2007 at 5:19 pm  

    Except I’m not Indian.

    Back to the Bengali drawing board for sid…

  76. Sid — on 10th December, 2007 at 5:20 pm  

    now now Muzumdar…

  77. Deep Singh — on 10th December, 2007 at 5:35 pm  

    Sid @ 74.

    “Pretty darn shameless but wholly representative of many Indians in the UK.”

    Whilst I concur with your concerns over Shin Bet’s comments concerning Muslims in India (I believe my subsequent posts above and on other threads are testimony to that), to suggest that “many Indians in the UK” hold such a view is absurd and not a million miles away from similar criticisms leveled at Muslims in the UK demanding their rights and changes to “British Culture”, yet in their own Islamic countries rarely grant the right for non-Muslims to even voice such opinions, so much so, that even Muslims females who frequently air such views in the UK would not even have a platform to be so vocal in many Islamic countries.

    I doubt you concur with the above analysis, however I am frequently seeing you adopt a over simplified view on all matters Indian over your personal rows with Muzumdar, Shin bet or Ambrosio, without realising the implications of such comments for the considerably wider picture, thereby running the risk of further polarisation of communities.

  78. sonia — on 10th December, 2007 at 5:45 pm  

    Indy I said I didn’t know anything about the RSS – so how can i have a misconception or not? I said i have no conception! Why are you so defensive?

    My point applies to the Kelloggs company, or any organisation called X – and was very specifically to your statements about an organisation being about culture, and not being a fascistic organisation. I simply pointed out = that any organisation can be both. I don’t give a damn about the RSS actually, it was an *abstract* point. so don’t worry, you can carry on defending it.

  79. sonia — on 10th December, 2007 at 5:47 pm  

    But from what YOU have said about the RSS, and your general attitude, ( smart quips indeed!) it sounds very suspect to me.

  80. Desi Italiana — on 10th December, 2007 at 5:58 pm  

    Indy:

    “One more thing, for the right info on what the RSS is all about please log on to their website: http://www.rss.org

    Nice way to ignore everything that everyone has said in opposition to your ludicrous remarks, and then linking to the RSS!

  81. Cover Drive — on 10th December, 2007 at 7:06 pm  

    It’s funny how a lot of Indians expect and demand complete assimilation and rights as immigrants to the UK but regard their own minorities (who have been there for centuries) as foreigners.

    Actually there is evidence that the Indian diaspora, particularly in the US, is having an influence on Hindutva politics in India. They have been channelling funds to support Hindu extremism in India for a long time through charities such as the Development and Relief Fund (IDRF): http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1925/stories/20021220005302800.htm

    IDRF was set up in 1979. Over the years it has collected vast sums from many well-meaning unwitting NRIs and big corporations such as CISCO, Sun, Oracle and HP.

    The Hindu revivalist is based on fantasy – reinventing an India that existed before the Islamic invasion of India. Some of the Indians in the US share this fantasy. Their feeling of alienation in their new country compounded by difficulties in assimilation, racism, guilt of leaving their homeland, and a sense of disconnection from what is meaningful (culture, home, identity, etc) adds to their myth of their motherland.

    However, its not just hate money from the US that keeps the Hindutva project going. The demise of the largely secular Congress, the rise of identity politics in India and the avaricious greed of the growing Indian middle classes also contribute to the project.

  82. Edsa — on 10th December, 2007 at 7:36 pm  

    Shin Bet said: It was only 1000 people – and, as usual, Muslims started this barbarity…
    Shin goes back some 500 years and condemns the Mughals for “invading the sub-continent on a religious pretext in the first place”.

    Invaders and conquerors will always be there but the native Hindus lacked unity and military prowess. They could resist none – Mughals, Portuguese, French or British. The fact is India should be thankful to the Mughals for their civilising influences they left behind such as architecture & gardens. Isn’t India the richer for Muslim monuments, art and design?

    The first emperor, aged 42, Zahiruddin Babar made his 5th to Hindustan from Kabul in 1525. In contrast to the Hindus, he left records. His Baburnama – Journal of Emperor Babur (Edited by Dilip Hiro, Penguin) started in 1494 includes his impressions and assorted accounts.

    He is most often quoted for the best-known passage in the Babarama:
    “Hindustan is a country of few charms.
    - Its people have no good looks.
    - Of social intercourse, paying and receiving visits, there is none; of manners none
    - of genius and capacity none in handicraft
    - no method or quality;
    - no good horses, no good dogs,
    - no grapes, musk-melons or first-rate fruits;
    - no ice or cold water;
    - no good bread or cooked food in bazaars;
    - no hot baths; no colleges;
    - no torches, candles or candlesticks.”

    Hardly flattering! The Mughals surely brought in refinement, aesthetics, the art of discourse etc The British helped unify India into a nation-state and brought in technology, admin and legal structures. So will Shin condemn these new invaders?

  83. Shin Bet — on 10th December, 2007 at 8:57 pm  

    Edsa

    You are so completely deluded it is a wonder why I bother replying to you.

    The fact is India should be thankful to the Mughals for their civilising influences they left behind such as architecture & gardens

    I wasn’t referring to the Mughals, I said Muslims, but I will return to the Mughals in a moment.

    The initial Muslim invasions if India were nothing but exercises in rape, pillage and plunder. They have left some historians (many of them Muslim) to compare these invasions to the Holocaust itself.

    As for the Mughals, if you think burning Sikh, Hindu and Buddhist temples, placing a bounty on non-Muslim heads and mass rape are ‘civilising methods’ then there is no hope for you.

    And when the hell did gardens and nice buildings make one ‘civilised’? The Nazis were renowned art collectors, I suppose they were ‘cultured’ in you eyes?

    Really.

    You are clearly a fan of imperialism; not really much point in arguing with a prick.

    So will Shin condemn these new invaders?

    What are on about here?

  84. Shin Bet — on 10th December, 2007 at 9:03 pm  

    Hindustan is a country of few charms.
    - Its people have no good looks.
    - Of social intercourse, paying and receiving visits, there is none; of manners none
    - of genius and capacity none in handicraft
    - no method or quality;
    - no good horses, no good dogs,
    - no grapes, musk-melons or first-rate fruits;
    - no ice or cold water;
    - no good bread or cooked food in bazaars;
    - no hot baths; no colleges;
    - no torches, candles or candlesticks.”

    Exactly. Why don’t Muslims go back to Arabia then, if it’s so shite?

    Also, why did he want to establish an empire there if it was rubbish? Why did he marry native women if they were so ugly?

    It should also be noted that some of the Mughals first exploits were to burn the libraries and colleges and the perios of Muslim history is referred to as the darkest in the sub-continent’s history.

    His Babar-Nama sounds like a poor attempt at Orientalism.

  85. Sid — on 10th December, 2007 at 9:12 pm  

    Deep Singh:

    criticisms leveled at Muslims in the UK demanding their rights and changes to “British Culture”, yet in their own Islamic countries rarely grant the right for non-Muslims to even voice such opinions, so much so, that even Muslims females who frequently air such views in the UK would not even have a platform to be so vocal in many Islamic countries.

    I doubt you concur with the above analysis,

    Oh I completely concur with your analysis of Muslim countries there Deep. In fact I could tell you a few horror stories of the treatment of South Asian Muslimm migrant workers at the hands of Kuwaiti and Saudi (respectively) authorities that will have you thanking your stars your parents emigrated to a nice country when they did.

    But you’ve got to agree that it’s also useful to show that extremist Indian and prejudices as displayed so picturesquely by Muzumdar-Abrosia-Shin Bet on this thread.

  86. Desi Italiana — on 10th December, 2007 at 9:26 pm  

    “Invaders and conquerors will always be there but the native Hindus lacked unity and military prowess. They could resist none – Mughals, Portuguese, French or British. The fact is India should be thankful to the Mughals for their civilising influences they left behind such as architecture & gardens. Isn’t India the richer for Muslim monuments, art and design?”

    Er…the majority of the Muslims in the subcontinent did not descend from the invading Mughals; they are desis who somewhere along the line converted.

    BTW, is it ok if we get past asserting one religion to counteract another religion based chauvenism?

  87. Desi Italiana — on 10th December, 2007 at 9:44 pm  

    Deep Singh–

    “that even Muslims females who frequently air such views in the UK would not even have a platform to be so vocal in many Islamic countries.”

    You are wrong about that. Everyone here seems to repeat this– that women in Muslim countries rarely speak up, they are too afraid, they can’t be vocal, etc. Maybe the governments won’t permit people to be too vocal about dissident and diverging views, but neither can many of the men.

    Obviously no one here has bothered to look into women’s movements in so many Muslim countries, led by women who are anything but silent, weak, submissive, and shut up. Considering how difficult and even dangerous it is for many people in certain countries to express and demand their rights and views, it’s all the more great that they HAVE carved out their platforms, so to speak.

  88. Kaalia — on 10th December, 2007 at 9:49 pm  

    LMAO at likes of Edsa still going along with their Mughalism was great and enlightening path still and in this age!

    The holier-than-thou attitude of the secular press and of the Congress Party vis-a-vis Modi and the BJP (or the RSS) hasn’t helped. It never will. It has only so far served to divide the nation. The secularists must be warned of the damage they are doing to the essential unity of the nation.

    Perverse secularism has been the bane of India in the last five decades. In his foreword to R. N. P. Singh’s book on `Islam and Religious Riots, K. P. Gill states bluntly: “Much of the `secular’ discourse in India has been based on a `politically correct’ refusal to confront the nature of religious communities and institutions, and their past and present activities, and on the fiction that `all religions are equal’… but it cannot even begin to address the sources of historical conflagrations. The truth is, unless communities acknowledge reality warts and all and recognise the transgressions of their own history within a constructive context, no real solution to the issues of communal polarisation and violence in India can be brought about”. That said, all is said.

    There has been too much pandering to minority communalism than is good for the minority itself. The time has come for the entire country to examine the communal issue freely, frankly, constructively and without bias. Mud-slinging at Modi has to stop. In recent times there has been too much of it for our own good, even though Modi himself couldn’t care less.

  89. Indy — on 11th December, 2007 at 4:15 am  

    Deep Singh @ 70

    RSS does not believe in any fantasy world, in fact, their vision is rooted in reality. For fifty years since independence India has been a pet puddle to the communist ideology. Now communism is not Indian, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were all foreigners, why should we continue to destroy our culture our economy in the name of an ideology that is totally foreign.

    It is time we learned to stand up to these Western educated hypocrites and take pride in our own culture.

    RSS does not want India to become a Stone Age civilization. In fact, if the West has something good to teach us, then we will learn from them. For example, the Western way of dressing is very sensible and comfortable as well, so we can use Khaki knickers, caps etc. It is not important that every India should be a dhoti-kurta clad philistine.

    In any case, RSS is not a “fashion” organization. It is a cultural organization, mostly it is a debating body that tries to learn from our historical mistakes so that we don’t keep repeating them in future. Violence is never a part of the RSS ideology. India can only go forward when all the communities learn to co-exist in peace and harmony.

    What makes you think that karate, weight lifting, etc are foreign arts? We Indians have been developing body building techniques for the last 10000 years.

    I support RSS because I think that only RSS has the power or the motivation to free India from the shackles of communism and socialism. There is too much corruption and inefficiency in our govt. we need to tackle all that.

  90. Indy — on 11th December, 2007 at 4:25 am  

    Parvinder @ 73

    I am sorry to say, but it is obvious that you are mentioning is a historical legend that is completely incorrect.

    The RSS uniform did not come from the Nazis (who are a hated lot), it was inspired from the democratic British who were then rulers of India.

    The philosophy of RSS derives from Sanatana Dharma, a philosophical idea that believes in unity of man.

    I would request you to cast away the veil of your prejudices and do a research on what Sanatana Dharma really stands for. I can assure you that you will be surprised by what you find.

    ———-

    Sonia @ 78

    These days it has become the habit of many smart people to drop epithets like “Nazi” or “Fascist” in response to any entity or idea that they dislike.

    But RSS cannot be a fascist organization, because it does not seek any kind of political power. All it seeks is to provide moral and cultural guidance to the citizens of the country.

    And Indians do need such guidance. There is so much that has gone wrong with this nation. And who is going to mend this nation, if not people like us.

    I know it is very difficult for people to let go of their prejudices, but you can at least give it a try.

  91. Parvinder — on 11th December, 2007 at 9:30 am  

    Indy, I’m not prejudiced against the RSS, I’m only quoting its leader, Golwalkar.

    So are you denying Golwalkar wrote the quotes stated in #73 in his book ‘We, or our nationhood defined’.
    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhav_Sadashiv_Golwalkar

    The RSS website proclaims: ‘This is a Hindu nation’… I presume they mean India. Really ?
    I’m also curious what the RSS makes of the Sikhs. Do they recognise them as a separate religion?

  92. Rumbold — on 11th December, 2007 at 9:33 am  

    Edsa and Shin Bet:

    Like most empires, the Mughals left a mixed legacy. There were dark periods of course, notably Aurangzeb’s persecutions and the subsequent failure to stop the Marathas and other raiders destroying the empire and bringing chaos. However, the Mughals did advance the arts of painting, building and landscaping (though these were all in India beforehand, and the Taj Mahal, the best example, can be said to be of Indian, rather than of Persian, design).

    Babur is not the best example of a ‘cultured’ ruler, as he was pretty coarse himself, and it would not be until the latter days of his son’s reign that we really start to see the Persio-Timurid culture develop into the way we think of it today.

    Shin Bet, the Mughals did not come from Arabia, they came from central Asia. You of course already know this, but you persist in the fallacy that all Muslim civilisations came directly from Arabia.

  93. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 10:02 am  

    rumbold

    Marathas and other raiders destroying the empire and bringing chaos.

    The Mughals are the ones who brought chaos to the sub-continent through their rapine and pillage. The Marathas, being indigenous, had every right to fight a foreign power and bring ‘chaos’ to the Mughal doorstep.

    the Taj Mahal

    The Taj Mahal is a monument to Hindu slave labour and a living reminder of what life was like for the kuffran under Islamic rule.

    Mughals did not come from Arabia, they came from central Asia

    Of course, but they derived their ideology from the Islam, an Arab concoction. And Babur’s rationale for invading the sub-continent in the first place was that the Lodhi Sultanate was being too kind to the kuffran and he wanted to create an Empire that Mohammed would be proud of. It can thus be safely asserted that Arabic Islam was the motivation behind his ruthless plunder, rape and pillage.

    the fallacy that all Muslim civilisations came directly from Arabia.

    They all derive their ideology from a 7th century Arab and all bow their heads five times to their Arab masters. That’s good enough for me.

  94. Rumbold — on 11th December, 2007 at 10:22 am  

    Shin Bet:

    “The Mughals are the ones who brought chaos to the sub-continent through their rapine and pillage. The Marathas, being indigenous, had every right to fight a foreign power and bring ‘chaos’ to the Mughal doorstep.”

    How long does a group have to be in a country to make it indigenous? My point about chaos is not that it hurt the Mughals, but that it hurt ordinary people, who suffered billetting, higher taxes, more taxes, conscription, destruction of property, rape and death because of it. Nor did the Marathas really have the ability to run an empire (sorry Vikrant), as their speciality was pillaging. This is not a defence of Mughal imperialism, rather the benefits of order, rather than civil war (and the Marathas were hardly better rulers).

    “Of course, but they derived their ideology from the Islam, an Arab concoction. And Babur’s rationale for invading the sub-continent in the first place was that the Lodhi Sultanate was being too kind to the kuffran and he wanted to create an Empire that Mohammed would be proud of. It can thus be safely asserted that Arabic Islam was the motivation behind his ruthless plunder, rape and pillage.”

    Whatever justification Babur came up with, the real reasons were what has motivated invaders for time immemorial; land, subjects, treasure, food, power. If you examine the expansion of the Islamic empire in the 7th and 8th century, then you will find they went out of their way to accomodate non-Muslims, and even discouraged some from converting to Islam (because then they would lose jizya revenue).

    “They all derive their ideology from a 7th century Arab and all bow their heads five times to their Arab masters. That’s good enough for me.”

    They derived their core religion from Arabia, and their culture from Central Asia and Persia. The Mughals were not particularly fond of the Ottomans (who controlled Arabia at this point)- they regarded them as insignificant upstarts. Hardly bowing their heads to their ‘Arab masters’.

  95. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 10:42 am  

    Rumbold

    How long does a group have to be in a country to make it indigenous?

    This is dependent on the group. If the group enters as invaders and shows complete disregard for the indigenous inhabitants for a period of over 900 years on the basis of a perceived religious superiority, then it can safely be assumed that the indigenous peoples will reject them, view them as lechers and always regard them as foreigners.

    it hurt ordinary people, who suffered billetting, higher taxes, more taxes, conscription, destruction of property, rape and death because of it.

    So did the initial Muslims and subsequent Mughal invasions; yet you seldom condemn them. I understand that you are naturally inclined towards imperialism, but most people don’t want to be subjugated on the pretext of religious inferiority.

    Nor did the Marathas really have the ability to run an empire (sorry Vikrant), as their speciality was pillaging

    Maybe so. But the Guptas did a pretty damn good job of running an Empire. Not to mention Ashoka. Yet your recourse is to Islamic Imperialism as a form of ‘civil’ governance. Why?

    If you examine the expansion of the Islamic empire in the 7th and 8th century, then you will find they went out of their way to accomodate non-Muslims,

    Tell that to all the Arab Pagans, Jews and Zoarastrians that were butchered by the armies of Islam.

    and even discouraged some from converting to Islam (because then they would lose jizya revenue).

    How noble!

    The Mughals were not particularly fond of the Ottomans (who controlled Arabia at this point)- they regarded them as insignificant upstarts. Hardly bowing their heads to their ‘Arab masters’.

    I was referring to Mecca, not some rowdy Turks.

  96. Indy — on 11th December, 2007 at 10:50 am  

    Parvinder @ 91

    You have to take the quotes of Shri Golwalkar in context of times in which he lived. You can’t use today’s morality to pass judgments on people who have lived in a different era.

    Morality is always subjective to the cultural and political ethos of the period in which a person exists. If Shri Golwalkar lived today, he might have expressed the same views in different language. The fact is that he is a revered leader to millions of Indians and foreigners as well.

    The RSS does proclaim India to be a Hindu nation. There is nothing wrong with that. Hinduism is not the name of a religion (in the commonly understood sense of the term). Hinduism is a socio-cultural concept, that defines the way of the life of people living in all the nations that are there in the Indian subcontinent.

    Sikhs are the proud part of Indian civilization. Punjab is the land of the richest and the most educated elite of the country. Every Indian is proud of the achievements of Sikhs, just as RSS is too.

  97. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 11:05 am  

    Indy

    I hate to urinate on your fantastical parade, but there is no such thing as ‘Indian civilisation’. The word ‘India’ is a British invention. If you want to refer to your civilisation by the foreign epithet ‘Indian’, then you go right ahead.

    As for Sikhs, we have our own Civilisation thanks, and it doesn’t involve dressing up like a German boy-band and worshipping Fascist demi-gods.

  98. Rumbold — on 11th December, 2007 at 11:12 am  

    Shin Bet:

    “This is dependent on the group. If the group enters as invaders and shows complete disregard for the indigenous inhabitants for a period of over 900 years on the basis of a perceived religious superiority, then it can safely be assumed that the indigenous peoples will reject them, view them as lechers and always regard them as foreigners.”

    But you could equally argue that was what the invading Aryans did. As somebody pointed out, most Muslims were Indians who converted to Islam, rather than those who came from elsewhere.

    “So did the initial Muslims and subsequent Mughal invasions; yet you seldom condemn them. I understand that you are naturally inclined towards imperialism, but most people don’t want to be subjugated on the pretext of religious inferiority.”

    I think that the initial invasions were bad, because of the suffering that they caused. This does not justify subsequent attacks on the Mughals though, as the latter attacks just caused the same problems as the former.

    “Maybe so. But the Guptas did a pretty damn good job of running an Empire. Not to mention Ashoka. Yet your recourse is to Islamic Imperialism as a form of ‘civil’ governance. Why?”

    Guptas, far enough. But Ashoka? Probably the worst Indian ruler ever. After slaughtering hundreds of thousands of his subjects in a vicious civil war, he then decided to selfishly convert to Buddhism, and encouraged others to do so. This led to the collapse of Ashoka’s army, ensuring that the empire was no longer defended against raiders and invaders. Anyway, I was referring to the Marathas specifically.

    “Tell that to all the Arab Pagans, Jews and Zoarastrians that were butchered by the armies of Islam.”

    Sorry, I did not mean to state that there was no violence, rather that the initial Muslim invaders discouraged conversions (which they did).

  99. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 11:31 am  

    I think the comments on this thread show quite succinctly just how ugly the communitarian racism is in Indian immigrant circles in the UK are.
    An Indian politician instigates the massacre of a thousand plus members of an Indian minority, using language about purity of the Indian race and “foreign invaders”, and here we have from comments on this thread, people applauding his actions parrotting his language.

    And here in the UK, we worry that Morrissey is a racist for openly worrying about immigration, for fuck’s sake.

  100. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 11:39 am  

    rum

    But you could equally argue that was what the invading Aryans did

    No. The Aryans did not come on a religious pretext and intermingled freely with non-Aryans – so much so that they were able to create an Indo-Aryan civilisation; it was organic. Islamic imperialists sought to implant a foreign, 7th century death cult ideology in the sub-continent; it has been rightly rejected.

    most Muslims were Indians who converted to Islam, rather than those who came from elsewhere.

    But their allegiances are to their Arab masters – demonstrated perfectly by their bowing their heads to Arabia 5 times a day – so they may as well be foreign. Imagine a Christian man in an Muslim country bowing his head to Washington 5 times a day; not only would he be slaughtered but he would be derided as a traitor of the highest order.

    I think that the initial invasions were bad, because of the suffering that they caused. This does not justify subsequent attacks on the Mughals though

    So by your reasoning, attacks on the Nazis while they were occupying Czechoslovakia, Poland, Russia etc were also unjustified. That’s poor reasoning.

    Sorry, I did not mean to state that there was no violence

    Good.

  101. Deep Singh — on 11th December, 2007 at 11:51 am  

    Sid @ 85 stated:

    Oh I completely concur with your analysis of Muslim countries there Deep. In fact I could tell you a few horror stories of the treatment of South Asian Muslimm migrant workers at the hands of Kuwaiti and Saudi (respectively) authorities that will have you thanking your stars your parents emigrated to a nice country when they did.
    But you’ve got to agree that it’s also useful to show that extremist Indian and prejudices as displayed so picturesquely by Muzumdar-Abrosia-Shin Bet on this thread.

    Sid, I don’t think I presented my comments as clearly as I could have done. The above is not supposed to be ‘my analysis’, but rather comments frequently echoed by critiques of Islamic communities in the West seeking to make claims to assert their rights. What truth there is behind this statement is another matter, however it is way too generic and can easily become a simple way silencing any genuine concerns that Islamic communities may have in the West.

    The underlying point being that making grand sweeping statements about any one community (here, your comments concerning India, on the other thread about Sikhism) to counter what you describe as “extremist Indian prejudices” from Muzumdar-Abrosia-Shin Bet are not really doing any justice to the discussion or argument, but simply resulting in what Desi Italiana describes as “asserting one religion to counteract another religion based chauvinism” (see #86).

    This is the all I am trying to convey – we are missing the bigger picture here, the next step is simply for those without religion to begin doing the same and we have no progress, just a series of hot-headed arguments (which themselves will be pathetic critiques of the other).

    Desi Italiana @ 87 stated:

    Deep Singh–
    “that even Muslims females who frequently air such views in the UK would not even have a platform to be so vocal in many Islamic countries.”
    You are wrong about that. Everyone here seems to repeat this– that women in Muslim countries rarely speak up, they are too afraid, they can’t be vocal, etc. Maybe the governments won’t permit people to be too vocal about dissident and diverging views, but neither can many of the men.

    ——————————————————————————————————————–

    Desi Italiana,

    I agree with what your saying, which is exactly my point – everyone is quick to make this comment (which as I say, is today little more than a hope to silence any genuine voices that are being raised). The reason I bring it up is to highlight how what you aptly described as ““asserting one religion to counteract another religion based chauvinism” (see #86) results in the same problem, i.e. grand sweeping commentary about an entire community (religion or secular) simply to counter some arguments which one deems to be weak and ill-thought-out.

    Hope this clarifies.

  102. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 12:04 pm  

    The underlying point being that making grand sweeping statements about any one community (here, your comments concerning India, on the other thread about Sikhism) to counter what you describe as “extremist Indian prejudices” from Muzumdar-Abrosia-Shin Bet are not really doing any justice to the discussion or argument, but simply resulting in what Desi Italiana describes as “asserting one religion to counteract another religion based chauvinism” (see #86).

    Deep, I’m not sure how I should be made responsible for the assigning the comments of Shin Bet to all Indians. I think you’ve misread my comments, as I’ve made it a point to stress that he represents a minority. But a real sizeable one. I’m more than aware about the extra rights demanded by religious organisations, we discuss here all the time on PP.

    But what are you doing about the nutters in your (Sikh) community. I notice you haven’t responded in any way or form to the racist comments of Ambrose/Shin Bet. Are you taking the approach that by ignoring it, it somehow ceases to exist?

  103. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 12:12 pm  

    to the racist comments

    Muslims are not a race; isn’t that the point you were harping on another thread?

    Hence by your own logic, I cannot be a racist.

    Also, have you found those ‘stats’ yet? Give up sid, you are a proven liar.

  104. Deep Singh — on 11th December, 2007 at 12:21 pm  

    Indy, Shin Bet,

    You are both typifiying the views of extreme “Hindu” and “Sikh” elements and are clearly versed in a politicised version of Indic history, hence your respective views on what constitutes a Hindu and Indian.

    My 2 cents, since this discussion has crept into this thread:

    1. The word “Hindu” is alien to India, the major proof of this being that it is never once used in the great texts of the Vedic period, namely the Shrutis that underlying Advait Vedantic worldviews (which largely apply to most Indian religions) or even non-shruti texts such as the Mahabharat. This doesn’t necessarily invalidate its use today.

    2. The word Hindu however is today defined differently by various groups, as (a) a religion (comprising historic groups otherwise known as Vaishavs, Shaivas etc) (b) a race and/or (c) a nationality (i.e. one belonging to “Hindustan”), to argue which is correct is an endless debate (akin to the famous ‘Chicken and Egg’ issue) and is really not important here in itself, save to say, that we can leave this argument aside, but note its impact on subsequent developments (such as the RSS facist agenda against Muslims and Christians, its underhand methods to distort Sikh and Buddhist history and the subsequent backlash from the aformentioned communities, which has given rise to numerous hotheads as a result – sometime, we are getting to see plenty of on this forum!).

    3. To argue that “India” is a foreign term invented by the British is fine, however it does not in itself invalidate the concept of “Akhand Bharat” which has being in existence prior to the arrival of the British. This is a line of argument used by many 2nd generations in the West (usually Sikhs, Muslims and Bengalis – Hindu and Muslim) as a bid to assert certain political ideas rather than being true to any form of authentic history.

    4. The arguments that India was civilised under the invasion of Islamic rulers is as absurd as the suggestion that the British Raj was the first time India came into the world of civilisation. The contributions of both (positive and negative) are well noted, however to argue that they are the civilising forces is nonsense and has been adequately addressed and disproved by academic scholars (of course there are plenty of non-scholarly works by pro-Nationalistic bodies such as the RSS, however their agenda does not mitigate the genuine scholarly studies on Indian civilisation pre-Islam and pre-British Raj).

    If anything, this thread, nay this forum, highlights one thing: The majority of people today, despite their access to Education are still falling for personality cults and/or mainstream pseudo-individualism, as a result the ability to look at any item objectively seems to severely missing here, whether one be discussing from a religious or secular viewpoint, the sheer tribal mentality that exists here is quite revolting.

  105. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 12:23 pm  

    Yeah we’ve heard the Muslims are not a race pretext a hundred times on this blog and other sites (LGF is a common one). It’s akin to the “anti-Israel is not antisemitic” bamboozle. The impulse is the same. Besides, Arabs are a race, and isn’t the problem that the poor Gujarati peasants who were killed by Modi’s goons, had “Arab Masters” as you’ve asserted?

  106. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 12:28 pm  

    Also, have you found those ’stats’ yet?

    No I haven’t but your pictres of cute kids and a single white sikh aren’t exactly “stats” either.

  107. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 12:40 pm  

    But I didn’t claim to have ‘stats’, you did.

    Also, thanks for confirming that Islam is an ‘Arab thing’.

  108. Deep Singh — on 11th December, 2007 at 12:42 pm  

    Indy,
    You asked the following:

    “RSS does not believe in any fantasy world, in fact, their vision is rooted in reality. For fifty years since independence India has been a pet puddle to the communist ideology. Now communism is not Indian, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were all foreigners, why should we continue to destroy our culture our economy in the name of an ideology that is totally foreign.”

    This is a different discussion, however what makes RSS ideology authentic? It is clearly inspired by false Aryan race notions developed in Europe and a hang over from the Imperial Raj.

    “It is time we learned to stand up to these Western educated hypocrites and take pride in our own culture”.

    I am more than happy to take pride in my cultural heritage, however will not condone the bastardisation of Indic traditions and worldview in doing so. Much of what is termed “cultural” traits amongst Indians today are little more than hangovers from the Victorian era Raj and now we are told that our views on women and family structures are antiquated! So yes, I concur one should take pride in their background and culture, however, as I say, not at the expense of destroying it or another’s for some petty political agenda.

    “RSS does not want India to become a Stone Age civilization. In fact, if the West has something good to teach us, then we will learn from them. For example, the Western way of dressing is very sensible and comfortable as well, so we can use Khaki knickers, caps etc. It is not important that every India should be a dhoti-kurta clad philistine.”

    You are a fool. What makes a ‘dhoti-kurta’ wearing individual a philistine?!! You 100% twat, the great Adi Shankrachariya was dressed in this manner, as were plenty of rishis, scholars and other individuals of great repute who are far from being ‘philitines’!!!

    For the record, I am not challenging the notion of wearing western attire, I wear it myself, however I am not arguing for some flawed concept of ‘reviving traditions from our glorious past’ and then using something alien and antiquated from the British Raj as my identity marker! The very fact that you relegate a traditional Indian dress as belonging to the Stone Age (which in fact it does not, but why would a fundamentalist concern himself with historical accuracy) just goes to show your lack of knowledge and inability to see the crux of the matter.

    “In any case, RSS is not a “fashion” organization. It is a cultural organization, mostly it is a debating body that tries to learn from our historical mistakes so that we don’t keep repeating them in future. Violence is never a part of the RSS ideology. India can only go forward when all the communities learn to co-exist in peace and harmony.”

    I concur that India, or for that matter any country, can progress further with inter-communal harmony, however your assertion that violence is not part of the RSS ideology has been shown to be incorrect time and again on this very thread.

    “What makes you think that karate, weight lifting, etc are foreign arts? We Indians have been developing body building techniques for the last 10000 years.”

    Indy, Karate is a Japanese martial art, weight lifting in the Gym is a western development. Traditional Indian body building techniques and martial arts are uniquely different from these two systems. I am not arguing which is better or worse – I myself use non-Indian martial arts and training systems, however again, I am not the one arguing for a ‘revival of culture and tradition’ and then being so blatantly being unaware of my own traditional cultural forms and identifications.

    You my friend are being parrot-fed a nationalistic agenda, which you are lapping up without any objective thought, which suffers from the common problem typical of all fundamentalism. I’ll spell it out for you:

    1. Any fundamental position (religious or secular) boils down to “things done today are not authentic, so we need to revive the old as people have forgotten about them owing to various factors”.

    2. Fundamenalists then seek to convert their own to their version of the “authentic”.

    3. Problem = how the hell do the fundamentalists know what is authentic? How is their knowledge of the authentic, which has supposedly been lost over the years any more reliable than anothers? This is typically why fundamentalists always experience splits in their organisations and mindset, since in reality they don’t know as much as they think they do.

  109. Kaalia — on 11th December, 2007 at 12:43 pm  

    “Hindus too experienced this treatment at the hands of Islamic conquerors, e.g. when Mohammed bin Qasim conquered the lower Indus basin in 712 CE. Thus, in Multan, according to the Chach-Nama, “six thousand warriors were put to death, and all their relations and dependents were taken as slaves”. This is why Rajput women committed mass suicide to save their honour in the face of the imminent entry of victorious Muslim armies, e.g. 8,000 women immolated themselves during Akbar’s capture of Chittorgarh in 1568 (where this most enlightened ruler also killed 30,000 non-combatants).

    “Hindu Society has been suffering a sustained attack from Islam since the 7th century, from Christianity since the 15th century, and this century also from Marxism. The avowed objective of each of these three world-conquering movements, with their massive resources, is the replacement of Hinduism by their own ideology, or in effect: the destruction of Hinduism. This concern is not at all paranoid (as the spokespersons of these aggressors would say), even if the conversion squads are remarkably unsuccessful in India. Consider the situation in Africa: in 1900, 50 % of all Africans practiced Pagan religion; today Christian and Islamic missionaries have reduced this number to less than 10 %. That is the kind of threat Hinduism is up against. ”

    (source: Negationism in India: Concealing the Records of Isalm – By Koenraad Elst p 78 – 79 and Was There an Islamic “Genocide” of Hindus? – By Koenraad Elst).

  110. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 12:43 pm  

    oh but I didn’t. you demanded stats and I immediately claimed to have none and then you posted a blog post of cute kids and some white beardies.

  111. Kaalia — on 11th December, 2007 at 12:50 pm  

    Rizwan Salim reviewer, New York Tribune, Capitol Hill reporter, Engineering Times, assistant editor, American Sentinel, published in Hindustan Times has wisely observed:

    ” Savages at a very low level of civilization and no culture worth the name, from Arabia and west Asia, began entering India from the early century onwards. Islamic invaders demolished countless Hindu temples, shattered uncountable sculpture and idols, plundered innumerable palaces and forts of Hindu kings, killed vast numbers of Hindu men and carried off Hindu women. This story, the educated-and a lot of even the illiterate Indians-know very well. History books tell it in remarkable detail. But many Indians do not seem to recognize that the alien Muslim marauders destroyed the historical evolution of the earth’s most mentally advanced civilization, the most richly imaginative culture, and the most vigorously creative society. “

  112. douglas clark — on 11th December, 2007 at 12:54 pm  

    Deep Singh,

    You said:

    The majority of people today, despite their access to Education are still falling for personality cults and/or mainstream pseudo-individualism, as a result the ability to look at any item objectively seems to severely missing here, whether one be discussing from a religious or secular viewpoint, the sheer tribal mentality that exists here is quite revolting.

    Which had me nodding along in agreement, until the last bit:

    “the sheer tribal mentality that exists here is quite revolting”

    I think you are reading a bit too much into the words of, a very few, posters here.

  113. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 12:58 pm  

    sid

    I love the way you’re are trying to wriggle out of it, it’s so amusing. Your exact words were:

    ‘the social patterns and the stats suggest….xyz’

    You then failed to actual produce any stats.

    You are a proven liar.

  114. Kaalia — on 11th December, 2007 at 12:59 pm  

    “It is clear that India at the time when Muslim invaders turned towards it (8 to 11th century) was the earth’s richest region for its wealth in precious and semi-precious stones, gold and silver, religion and culture, and its fine arts and letters. Tenth century Hindustan was also too far advanced than its contemporaries in the East and the West for its achievements in the realms of speculative philosophy and scientific theorizing, mathematics and knowledge of nature’s workings. Hindus of the early medieval period were unquestionably superior in more things than the Chinese, the Persians (including the Sassanians), the Romans and the Byzantines of the immediate proceeding centuries. The followers of Siva and Vishnu on this subcontinent had created for themselves a society more mentally evolved-joyous and prosperous too-than had been realized by the Jews, Christians, and Muslim monotheists of the time. Medieval India, until the Islamic invaders destroyed it, was history’s most richly imaginative culture and one of the five most advanced civilizations of all times.

    Look at the Hindu art that Muslim iconoclasts severely damaged or destroyed. Ancient Hindu sculpture is vigorous and sensual in the highest degree-more fascinating than human figural art created anywhere else on earth. (Only statues created by classical Greek artists are in the same class as Hindu temple sculpture). Ancient Hindu temple architecture is the most awe-inspiring, ornate and spell-binding architectural style found anywhere in the world. (The Gothic art of cathedrals in France is the only other religious architecture that is comparable with the intricate architecture of Hindu temples). No artist of any historical civilization have ever revealed the same genius as ancient Hindustan’s artists and artisans.

    Their minds filled with venom against the idol-worshippers of Hindustan, the Muslims destroyed a large number of ancient Hindu temples. This is a historical fact, mentioned by Muslim chroniclers and others of the time. A number of temples were merely damaged and remained standing. But a large number – not hundreds but many thousands – of the ancient temples were broken into shreds of cracked stone. In the ancient cities of Varanasi and Mathura, Ujjain and Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi and Dwarka, not one temple survives whole and intact from the ancient times.

    It is easy to conclude that virtually every Hindu temple built in the ancient times is a perfect work of art. The evidence of the ferocity with which the Muslim invaders must have struck at the sculptures of gods and goddesses, demons and apsaras, kings and queens, dancers and musicians is frightful. At so many ancient temples of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, for example, shattered portions of stone images still lie scattered in the temple courtyards. Considering the fury used on the idols and sculptures, the stone-breaking axe must have been applied to thousands upon thousands of images of hypnotic beauty.

    Giving proof of the resentment that men belonging to an inferior civilization feel upon encountering a superior civilization of individuals with a more refined culture, Islamic invaders from Arabia and western Asia broke and burned everything beautiful they came across in Hindustan. So morally degenerate were the Muslim Sultans that, rather than attract Hindu “infidels” to Islam through force of personal example and exhortation, they just built a number of mosques at the sites of torn down temples-and foolishly pretended they had triumphed over the minds and culture of the Hindus. ”

    (source: India: A Concise History – By Francis Watson p. 96).

    Watch History of Ayodhya – videogoogle.com.

    Watch Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against The West

    Refer to Why did Aurangzeb Demolish the Kashi Vishvanath? – By Koenraad Elst.

    For a documentary on Hindu temples, refer to The Lost Temples of India.

    Refer to Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims – By Alamgir Hussain – islam-watch.org.

  115. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 1:03 pm  

    ah but I don’t have the stats and didn’t claim I did. I simply put forward the opinion, which is possibly reinforced by formal studies, that Sikhs are not predisposed to marry interracially because of the nature of caste and exceptionalism that is intrinsic to Sikhs. You seemed to interpret this in an extreme manner as shown by the stance you’ve taken on this thread.

  116. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 1:06 pm  

    A review of Frank Chalk’s Sociology of Genocide:

    Genocide is not an invention of the twentieth-century, say Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn in this absorbing book, but has occurred throughout history in all parts of the world. This study—the first comprehensive survey of the history and sociology of genocide—presents over two dozen examples of the one-sided mass slaughter of peoples, spanning the centuries from antiquity to the present.

    By including political and social groups as potential victims, Chalk and Jonassohn provide a definition of genocide that is considerably broader than that contained in the United Nations Convention on Genocide. They present a typology of genocide according to the motives of the perpetrator: to eliminate a perceived threat; to spread terror among real or potential enemies; to acquire economic wealth; or to implement a belief, theory, or ideology. Chalk and Jonassohn show how the first three motives have played a role in the establishment and maintenance of empires. They note that since empires have almost disappeared, so have these three types of genocides become rare, and that ideological genocides have become the most important type of genocide in the twentieth-century. The second part of the book consists of selected studies. These include Rome’s final war with Carthage, the Mongol Conquests, the Albigensian Crusades, the Great Witch-Hunt, Christians in Japan, Indians in the Americas, Ndwandwe under Shaka Zulu, Hereros in German South West Africa, Armenians in Turkey, the Soviet Union under Stalin, the Holocaust, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Burundi, and Cambodia, among others. The last part of the book presents topical bibliographies to aid the student and researcher.

  117. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 1:06 pm  

    The book

  118. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 1:08 pm  

    ah but I don’t have the stats and didn’t claim I did.

    Which is why your argument collapsed and you were utterly routed in the debate.

    I simply put forward the opinion,

    Which you claimed was based on ‘stats’ – ‘stats’ that have yet to materialise.

    which is possibly reinforced by formal studies…

    Oh dear, another assertion. Will this prove baseless again? Or will you provide me a link to a ‘formal study’.

    This is great. Keep it coming.

  119. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 2:07 pm  

    As far as quality of stats is concerned, I don’t have a blog of pretty pictures of Sikhs *not* marrying outside of their caste/race. ;)

  120. Deep Singh — on 11th December, 2007 at 2:17 pm  

    Doug Clark @ 112.

    Doug, the problem is that the few posters who are captured under within this statement are quite frequent in their posts (beating the same dead donkey).

  121. Indy — on 11th December, 2007 at 2:21 pm  

    Deep Singh @ 108

    I read your comment with interest, but to me you sound like a typical apologist for British Imperialism.

    What makes you think that the present Indian culture is a hangover of Victorian culture? That is simply not true.

    I agree that we have learned some good things from the British, but much of what we consider Indian culture is wholly Indian.

    For that matter even the British have learned a lot from India. You can find many words in the English language that owe their origin to “Sanskrit” terms.

    I find your contention that weight lifting is a Western art meant to be practices in a gym very laughable.

    Indians invented the art of body building and hand to hand combat 5000 years ago. The Pandava princes during the Mahabharata era used to know much better karate, but they called it in a different name.

    Please start reading about Indian culture, don’t let these European upstarts brainwash you into believing all sorts of nonsense about India.

  122. Indy — on 11th December, 2007 at 2:26 pm  

    Deep Singh, Shin Bet and others,

    I would like to recommend one book to the fellow bloggers out here.

    The book is Return of Aryans by Bhagwan S Gidwani.

    http://www.amazon.com/Return-Aryans-B-S-Gidwani/dp/0140240535

    This book written by an eminent historian proves once and for all that Indians are the true Aryans.

    The Indian Aryans left India 3000 years ago and they travelled all the way to Europe to bring civilization to that land, which was then completely uncivilized.

    Without the Indian migration of 3000 years ago modern Europe was not possible.

    Please read this book and find out for yourself just how great we Indias were 3000 years ago and we still are in many ways.

  123. Deep Singh — on 11th December, 2007 at 3:18 pm  

    Indy, you wrote:
    “I read your comment with interest, but to me you sound like a typical apologist for British Imperialism”.

    The fact that you are accusing me of being an apologist for British Imperialism indicates either (a) you haven’t read my posts carefully enough and/or (b) you fail to grasp the English language fully.

    “What makes you think that the present Indian culture is a hangover of Victorian culture? That is simply not true”

    Attitudes towards women being solely mothers and homemakers, attitudes towards sexuality and so forth are a hang over from the Victoria cultural attitudes brought over by the Raj. There is much literature available in this respect, so I do not wish to divert the discussion unnecessarily in this direction, however these are the very things that India gets critiqued for today without realising that much of this is the result of external influence. The late 1800’s and early1900s for Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims are full revivalist movements which were heavily influenced by orientalists, modernism, positivism and other predominantly European trends of the same period, all of which aided in this adoption of certain Victorian ideals by Indians.

    “I agree that we have learned some good things from the British, but much of what we consider Indian culture is wholly Indian”

    Indy, what you consider to be Indian culture is questionable – you even deride the one who chooses to wear a dhoti or a kurta pyjama as a philistine, yet defend khaki shorts and a baseball cap as acceptable forms of authentic identification. For the record, I am not suggesting that Indian Culture developed only from the influence of the British or Islamic rulers/invaders/etc – if you read my posts carefully, you will note that I actually hold the opposing view, namely that India was amongst one of the oldest civilisations known and has a truly rich and progressive culture.

    “For that matter even the British have learned a lot from India. You can find many words in the English language that owe their origin to “Sanskrit” terms”
    What does this have to do with the price of fish? There are plenty of words in English which are derived from French, so what? The bottom line is you are failing to address the very real concerns of fascist tendencies within the RSS or the fact that their revisionist cultural expression is flawed, instead looking to argue non-issues with me – my friend, I am not a British Raj apologist!

    “I find your contention that weight lifting is a Western art meant to be practices in a gym very laughable. Indians invented the art of body building and hand to hand combat 5000 years ago. The Pandava princes during the Mahabharata era used to know much better karate, but they called it in a different name.”

    Indy, I find you laughable! Body building as is now popular in contests such as The Arnold and covered by magazines such as Flex, Muscles & Fitness etc is not the same as the body building physical culture which developed in India amongst the Pehlwans and Hanuman Akharas. In fact, if you go to the remnants of the traditional Indian Akharas which survive today, you can see these differences in physical culture very clearly at what is perceived to be a strong and healthy physique by Indian standards is greatly different by that of Western body building standards – in fact, Pehlwans from these Akharas often criticise the physique of Western bodybuilders as being ‘chunks of meat slabbed together’ preferring their more ‘rounded and toned’ bodies, which they consider more representative of Indian physical culture (i.e. not six-packs and hyper-developed musculature).
    On the subject of martial arts, I think you’ll find in my earlier post a reference to Kalaripatt (a South Indian martial art) and allusion to other forms of traditional Indian armed and unarmed combat (Plata, Khusti etc), I imagine however reading your subsequent posts that these terms went flying over your head given that your parrot-fed RSS revisionist history over looks all of this in favour of a foreign art (Karate).

    The point again being:

    YOU argue that the RSS is a CULTURAL organisation steeped in reviving the glorious PAST of India.

    Vs.

    ME saying that the culture promoted by the RSS is NOT traditional and I have given summary examples of how this can be easily ascertained. You have yet to provide any tangible argument to the contrary and more importantly address the allegations of fascism labelled against your organisation.

    “Please start reading about Indian culture, don’t let these European upstarts brainwash you into believing all sorts of nonsense about India”

    Indy, not wishing to sound pretentious, however since you bring this matter up, for your information, I do read about Indian culture frequently, from philosophy based on the writings of the legendary Adi Sankracharya, Sufi poetry through to the genius of the Sikh Gurus through to historical texts (Mahabharat, Sri Gur Sobha, Sri Guru Panth Prakash and the Gur Bilas literature) or more contemporary writings of Indians such as Khushwant Singh, Romila Thapar, Harjot Oberoi and others. Additionally, I also practice/participate in Indian cultural items such as Hindustani Classical Sangeet, Kathak Dance and (miniature) artwork.

    The bottom line being, none of these will result in me being “brainwashed” by “European upstarts” as you suggest. You however are swallowing all the revisionist fascist nonsense spewed out by the RSS without any objective look at the matter.

    I suggest you look at some non-orientalist influenced literature and understand what Indian culture truly was prior to the British Raj. Perhaps a good place to investigate would be the academic institutions and educational resources made available to the common man in the pre-Raj India and how the treatment of women thereunder is quite different to the picture displayed today of them all being forced into behaving as housewives and mothers.

  124. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 3:44 pm  

    Indy

    Your ‘book’ is a work of fiction, literally.

    Did it no occur to you that if the writer wanted to make a historical point, he would have written a history book, rather than a fictional one?

    It does not matter where the Aryans came from; all that matters is what they achieved while on the sub-continent.

  125. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 3:48 pm  

    all that matters is what they achieved while on the sub-continent.

    Which was subjugation of Indian aboriginals and the creation of the caste system, the abuses of which are felt in the Hindu and Sikh communities thousands of years later to this day? yep.

  126. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 4:02 pm  

    sid

    Of course you are correct, but surely you, as a Mussalman, must understand the notion of context.

    For a four thousand year-old (odd) community they were pretty damn advanced. While the Arabs were trying to figure out how to milk a goat, the Indo-Aryans were building cities and revelling in commerce and trade.

    Of course they had their negatives (caste etc), and I am allowed to criticise them for these negatives without the threat of death looming over me – unlike if I were to criticise Muhammad or Islamic civilisation in a Muslim land.

  127. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 4:06 pm  

    What’s with the Arab hang-up old bean?

  128. Deep Singh — on 11th December, 2007 at 4:07 pm  

    Indy, Sid and Shin Bet,

    The “Aryan Invasion” vs “Out of India” debate is still hotly contested amongst academic circles today, either way it is rather like the ‘chicken and egg’ style endless debate as to the correct definition of the term “Hindu”.

    Likewise the issue of the caste system and “subjugation of Indian aboriginals” is not something that can necessarily be attributed to this supposed historical event, which ever version of it one chooses to accept.

    As mentioned elsewhere, the caste system is not a religiously enforced issue, although today its influence (abusive or otherwise) is still felt amongst Hindus, Sikhs and FYI, also Muslims, Christians and even non-religious groups in India (i.e. it is a social issue).

    If one goes back to the Rig Ved, it is clear that there was in existence only 3 stratified segments of social class (Brahmih, Kshatriya and Vaisha, i.e. no untouchable class) and these were intermingling and intermarriage was common amongst them (for example, Suraj, king of the Kshatriyas, marrying the daughter of Vishvakarma, a Brahmin).

    The caste system was also fluid, a certain group of Kashmiri Brahmins were relegated of their Brahmin occupation when they took up calligraphy painting and art as their main occupation.

    It is much later that the fixed and most permanent nature of the caste system becomes manifest and this is linked to the Law of Manu, which is not as I have shown elsewhere, a religious text and for the purposes of this thread, the Manu Simriti is not a text that relates to the incoming “Aryan” civilisation, since that would relate to the Vedic era, where caste operated differently, as summarised above.

  129. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 4:12 pm  

    Here is an tragically amusing discussion about high caste Sikh Jatt girls going with low caste Sikh Chamars (chamars – the tanner caste).

  130. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 4:16 pm  

    It’s just that their form of imperialism, slavery, rape and general murder – institutionalised by Islam and taken on by other savages like the Mughals – tends to get overshadowed by the stupid postcolonial frenzy that blames the ‘white man’ for all of the third world’s problems.

    Their women are great lookers though. Not as nice as Kashmiris, but nice nonetheless.

  131. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 4:21 pm  

    sid

    And the purpose of linking to that thread is what?

    If I now link to a Muslim forum where members are condoning rape, justifying Muhammed’s sexually explicit relationship with a nine-year-old girl and concubinage, what would it prove?

    Stop being so childish and act your age, old chap.

  132. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 4:30 pm  

    And the purpose of linking to that thread is what?

    In response to comments that the caste system does not impact the social order of Indians even if doctrinally prohibited, as in the Sikh faith.

    I have close chamar friends. One’s a top flight investment banker and the other a doctor. Neither blame “the white man” nor “Mussalman” for their social status in Indian society. Both are clear that NOT being born in India has saved their bacon, so to speak.

  133. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 4:40 pm  

    sidney, my old Bengali restraunt owner chum,

    In response to comments that the caste system does not impact the social order of Indians

    None of us denied this: your own inability to read, or plain idiocy, has led you to view mine and Deep’s post through your own paranoid lens.

    doctrinally prohibited, as in the Sikh faith

    Finally, a break through. So you can read.

    Both are clear that NOT being born in India has saved their bacon, so to speak.

    First of all, we all know that you have no friends. All jokes aside, they are right; again, when have I denied this?

    By the way, I used to know some stunning Bengali Muslimahs and both their family’s were riddled with caste prejudices and religious bigotry.

    Luckily, I wasn’t in for the marriage, no pun intended.

  134. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 4:43 pm  

    you can take caste out of Sikhism but you can’t take the Sikh out of the caste, if you’ll forgive a paraphrase. ;)

  135. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 4:48 pm  

    Well, apart from the fact that you muddled it up (are you Dyslexic? Serious question as it would explain a lot), you’re still wrong.

    You should restrict your ‘paraphrase’ to Punjabi Sikhs. Sikhs from the rest of the world generally have no such hang ups.

    But let me also try one:

    ‘You can take the paedophilia out of Muslim society, but can’t take the paedophilia out of Islam.’

    (smiley face).

  136. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 4:53 pm  

    spoken like a high caste sikh!

  137. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 5:03 pm  

    As you already know, I don’t believe in caste, my old mucker.

    I have many prejudices, but caste is not one of them.

    You’re not part of the ‘Ashraf’ are you? That would just be un-Islamic…

  138. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 5:07 pm  

    you’ve already made clear what you believe in, in comment #45. Even with your track record of stupid, thick as shit trollery, I found that comment breathtakingly evil.

  139. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 5:21 pm  

    Dear dear, do calm down.

    As Allah says in the Quran, he never puts a burden on Muslims which they cannot bear, because he is all knowing, all wise.

    Take heed.

  140. Deep Singh — on 11th December, 2007 at 5:32 pm  

    FYI. Jatt is NOT a high caste!

    Please continue with your fight, this is actually quite amusing now that I think about it and if any misrepresentation of Sikhism or Islam results, then I would hope those reading can be objective enough to disassociate the teachings of these traditions from the petty quabbles of 2nd generation individuals and their tribalism.

  141. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 5:33 pm  

    please don’t delete this thread.

  142. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 5:34 pm  

    FYI. Jatt is NOT a high caste!

    Its higher than a Dalit (chamar)!

  143. Parvinder — on 11th December, 2007 at 5:58 pm  

    Shin Bet, I suggest you stick to the main topic of this thread, and not your own personel prejudices which I find repundant.

    In no. 45 you wrote: ‘Is all this talk of ‘genocide’ not over-exaggeration? It was only 1000 people – and, as usual, Muslims started this barbarity. Not by burning sixty Hindus to death in Gujarat, but by invading the sub-continent on a religious pretext in the first place.’

    Firstly, human rights groups on the ground state up to 2000 died. But its not about the numbers. The definition of Genocide is ‘intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group’. This happened in both 1984 and 2002.
    http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm

    Secondly, according to the Banerjee Committee report the Godra train fire you refer to was not deliberate but an accident.
    http://www.news.indiamart.com/news-analysis/godhra-train-fire-ac-11837.html

  144. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 6:11 pm  

    The definition of Genocide is ‘intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group’.

    OK, let’s go through this.

    intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national

    Did they intend to destroy all Muslims in India? No, so that rules out the national element.

    ethnical

    This is absurd. Both the perpetrators and the victims were the same ethnicity.

    racial

    Ibid.

    religious group

    Did they intend to destroy all Muslims in the world? In India? In Gujarat? No.

    This happened in both 1984 and 2002.

    Do not even compare the two. Like I have said, Sikhs belong on the sub-continent – our blood is in the soil. Muslims belong in Arabia, with their masters.

  145. Deep Singh — on 11th December, 2007 at 6:13 pm  

    Sid, indeed it is higher than a chamar in the eyes of the Jatts, however this is a misconception in the latter since their socio-economic rise during the late 18th century was driven by the rise of Sikh political power, Jatts later (and more noticeably) obtained status under the British Raj, which was consolidated under the legal ramifications of their Punjab Land Act in 1901, which is indeed responsible for the resultant intercommunal issues that have arisen over the past century.

    From the traditional perspective of caste, as per the law of Manu, both Jatts and Chamars are out/low caste (i.e. “Achoot” or at best “Shudras”). In any event, today neither Jatt or Chamar are Dalits – the term you are looking for is “Choora”.

    Your comments at 134 concerning Sikhs and Shin Bet’s comments at 135 are really not needed. Caste issues (negative or otherwise) have infiltrated both communities (sikhs and muslims) and as I and Sofia (on another thread) have repeatedly shown, yet you both seem hell bent on ignoring this just to further your own petty fight, but please don’t let me stop you, as I said above, its becoming rather amusing to read.

    Interestingly enough, recent reportings on Chamars in India show that the present generation are increasingly becoming more educated and established than their Jatt counterparts, despite the latter still trying to hold onto their perceived superior caste ranking (which as indicated above, in actuality is not that high!)

  146. Deep Singh — on 11th December, 2007 at 6:16 pm  

    Shin Bet @144 wrote:

    “Sikhs belong on the sub-continent – our blood is in the soil. Muslims belong in Arabia, with their masters”.

    Forgive my asking, however, are you serious?

  147. Edsa-1 — on 11th December, 2007 at 7:19 pm  

    The multitude of opinions expressed on this topic is bewildering How wise of Sid #99 (and Sonia earlier)to shrewdly observe that “

    the comments on this thread show succinctly just how ugly the communitarian racism is in UK Indian immigrant circles.
    “An Indian politician instigates a massacre and here we have people applauding his actions parrotting his language. (Yet) in the UK, we worry that Morrissey is a racist for openly worrying about immigration.”

    Well said, Sid. Of the commentators, I found Rumbold so refreshingly objective and restrained. Keep it up, Rumbold. Shin Bet on the other hand gets needlessly agitated; he threatened to ‘urinate’ on another’s comment but will that water down the argument?

  148. douglas clark — on 11th December, 2007 at 7:29 pm  

    Shin Bet,

    You said:

    Do not even compare the two. Like I have said, Sikhs belong on the sub-continent – our blood is in the soil. Muslims belong in Arabia, with their masters.

    Are you actually standing up for the deaths of circa 2000 people in riots? We’ve – y’know you, me, everyone else who reads this thread – had a frigging war on terror to contend with for around 742 extra bodies.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/29/wtc.deaths/

    A war that has probably killed around a million people.

    It is utterly stupid to assume that every mass murder is genocide, that I would concede, but it is still a very evil thing. It could reasonably be argued that it is the start of an existential threat.

    I’d be more impressed with your arguements if you showed at least a degree of compassion for the folk that died.

    Are you, in fact, bereft of that sort of sentiment?

  149. Edsa-2 — on 11th December, 2007 at 7:39 pm  

    The ARYANS
    Indy #122 (11Dec07) recommended the book “Return of Aryans” by Bhagwan S Gidwani.

    He then claims that Indians are the true Aryans. So where do the Dravidian South Indians fit in?
    The notion of Indian Aryans travelling 3000 years to civilise Europe is hard to swallow. Where is the evidence?

    There are conflicting theories about Aryans.
    The site http://archaeology.about.com commented that “

    This story of Aryans as a cultural group from the arid steppes may not be true at all. The Aryan invasion theory is undergoing radical assessment by Indian archaeologists, using Vedic documents, linguistic studies…

    More likely, ‘Aryan’ refers to a linguistic and not a racial category.
    Wikipedia says: “Aryan is an English word derived from the Indian Vedic Sanskrit and Iranian Avestan terms… designation for Proto-Indo-Iranians… original meaning uncertain.

    Aryan currently refers only to the Indo-Iranian language sub-family.

    ”

    The term came to be associated with racial superiority, a meaning embraced by Nazi Germany. If this is merged with the Sanskrit meaning of ‘noble’, the Aryan Race becomes “both the highest representative of mankind and the purest descendent of the Proto-Indo-European population.”

    The swastika symbol chosen by Hitler was found in ancient Iranian archeological sites as well as on some pagan Germanic artefacts, vaguely suggesting a common religious and ethnic heritage between the ancient Germans and the Aryans.
    But there is a crucial difference between the Aryan and Hitler’s swastikas:
    “Hitler’s swastika is called “Hakenkreuz” which means ‘crooked cross’. The (Aryan) swastika is bent not the Hitler way but in the opposite direction – the direction in which the sun moves from east to west in its daily sojourn, which was basic to Aryan speaking people.”

    Today the word Aryan is tainted and tends to be avoided because of its multiple meanings. However, Aryan is acceptable as a linguistic technical term, without any ideological baggage.

  150. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 8:14 pm  

    Deep:

    In any event, today neither Jatt or Chamar are Dalits – the term you are looking for is “Choora”.

    No I meant Chamar, as in the actual word for the caste. “Choora” is an offensive and derogatory word from Punjabi slang. Have you and Shin Bet both been hitting the Red Label?

  151. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 8:21 pm  

    Edsa

    Given that you have spoken openly of your admiration for the Mughal genocide of non-Muslims, I won’t take you too seriously as a commentator.

    douglas

    Are you actually standing up for the deaths of circa 2000 people in riots?

    Let me put it to you in terms you may understand.

    When the Quran or Ahadtihs are quoted to illustrate the utter barbarity of Islam, the first (and only) recourse of Muslims, liberals, apologists etc is to use the argument of context; that they must be read in the context of 7th century Arabia.

    When Hindus in Gujarat massacre 1000 (2000? 3000? Who knows) Muslims it did not materialise out of nothing, there was also a context. I have provided readers with that context from post#45 onwards.

    You can either accept that context, or you can hide from it.

    I’d be more impressed with your arguements if you showed at least a degree of compassion for the folk that died.

    Are you, in fact, bereft of that sort of sentiment?

    I am not here to wallow over the so called plight of the Mussalman in India or anywhere else. They have enough breast beaters, armies of apologists and Leftist support.

    I am all sympathied out.

  152. Rumbold — on 11th December, 2007 at 8:28 pm  

    Shin Bet:

    “The Aryans did not come on a religious pretext and intermingled freely with non-Aryans – so much so that they were able to create an Indo-Aryan civilisation; it was organic. Islamic imperialists sought to implant a foreign, 7th century death cult ideology in the sub-continent; it has been rightly rejected.”

    If one looks at the Rig Veda then there is an attempt to justify the Aryan invasions (Indra, the personification of the Aryans steals the cattle, etc.). Why is Islam a death cult? Is it because you disagree with it?

    “But their allegiances are to their Arab masters – demonstrated perfectly by their bowing their heads to Arabia 5 times a day – so they may as well be foreign. Imagine a Christian man in an Muslim country bowing his head to Washington 5 times a day; not only would he be slaughtered but he would be derided as a traitor of the highest order.”

    You are well read enough to know that they are praying towards the Kabba and Mecca, not towards the Arabs who live there. That would be classed as worshipping false gods.

    “So by your reasoning, attacks on the Nazis while they were occupying Czechoslovakia, Poland, Russia etc were also unjustified. That’s poor reasoning.”

    No, of course not. My point was that a long and bloody civil war that ends up with a similar quality of government is not worth the bloodshed. Overthowing the Nazis was of course worth it.

    “Do not even compare the two [1984 and 2002]. Like I have said, Sikhs belong on the sub-continent – our blood is in the soil. Muslims belong in Arabia, with their masters.”

    That is the most vile thing you have ever said. On that basis then, a slaughter of Sikhs in this country would be okay because Sikhism did not start here.

    Indy:

    If you want to make a historical point, try not to link to works of fiction, otherwise I will feel obliged to explain why it was Sharpe that killed Tipu Sultan.

    Edsa-1:

    “Of the commentators, I found Rumbold so refreshingly objective and restrained. Keep it up, Rumbold.”

    Very kind of you, thanks.

  153. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 8:30 pm  

    sid

    Two of the most revered Sikh figures of the past thirty years are Sardars Satwant Singh and Beant Singh.

    Their pictures can be found in nearly all Gurdwaras across the Midlands (the British Sikh equivalent of the ‘Bible Belt’).

    Do you know who they were?

    Once you have done your customary Googling, I do hope you will zip it.

    Many thanks.

  154. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 8:36 pm  

    rumbold

    You are well read enough to know that they are praying towards the Kabba and Mecca, not towards the Arabs who live there. That would be classed as worshipping false gods.

    Do you even know what’s inside the Kaaba? It is the pots and pans of Muhammed! False idols of an Arabian demi-god indeed…

    My point was that a long and bloody civil war that ends up with a similar quality of government

    If the Marratha’s had replaced the Mughals, I couldn’t really see them implementing Shariah Law over a non-Muslim populace. Get it?

    On that basis then, a slaughter of Sikhs in this country would be okay because Sikhism did not start here.

    The Sikhs have not come here as religious imperialists, raped your women, pillaged you towns and cities and set up a theocratic government.

    Get some perspective.

  155. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 8:36 pm  

    Shin Bet

    There is a difference between having no sympathy for the victims of the Gujrati Massacre and standing up for it.

    You were asked:
    “Are you actually standing up for the deaths of circa 2000 people in riots?”

    You’ve shown on this thread that you are. And that’s why you’re in some seriously dodgy and disgraceful territory. Do you not see this?

  156. Rumbold — on 11th December, 2007 at 8:42 pm  

    Shin Bet:

    “If the Marratha’s had replaced the Mughals, I couldn’t really see them implementing Shariah Law over a non-Muslim populace. Get it?”

    But would they have been better rulers than the Mughals? Unlikely.

    “The Sikhs have not come here as religious imperialists, raped your women, pillaged you towns and cities and set up a theocratic government.

    Get some perspective.”

    So the mass murder of people is justified if their co-religionists do bad things? Was the Sikh pogrom in 1984 justified then (for it seems to be by your reasoning)?

  157. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 8:50 pm  

    rum

    But would they have been better rulers than the Mughals? Unlikely

    For non-Muslims, they would have been a thousand times better, yes.

    Was the Sikh pogrom in 1984 justified then (for it seems to be by your reasoning)?

    No, like I keep repeating, the subcontinent is the natural home of the Sikh faith and the Sikh people. We didn’t arrive from afar with a foreign ideology and try to implant it and enforce it on anyone – there can be no justification for the murder of Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and Jains by Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and Jains. We are all cousins.

    Of course, I still believe in a separate state for Sikhs, but that topic has been done.

  158. douglas clark — on 11th December, 2007 at 8:52 pm  

    Shin Bet,

    You know me a bit better than you are letting on, methinks.

    So, if folk are dead, then whether you – and you alone – sympathised with what they were in life is either a banality not worthy of your lofty communalism, or a call to arms as in “our blood is in the soil” which could well have come from the ‘Bumper Book of Hitlers Speeches’.

    [So, it's a Godwin - sue me.]

    Your arguement depends, it must be said, on a complete failure to see how it might reflect a failure on both sides.

    You are, sir, stirring excrement with a paddle.

    And you are starting to sound like a Northern Irish Protestant, what with dragging up stuff from centuries past. It is only of relevance to communalist crowd pleasers. The past we cannot change – learn to live with it – the future however is not cast in stone.

  159. Rumbold — on 11th December, 2007 at 8:58 pm  

    Shin Bet:

    “For non-Muslims, they would have been a thousand times better, yes.”

    Could you point me to examples of large-scale forced conversions by the Mughals please?

    “No, like I keep repeating, the subcontinent is the natural home of the Sikh faith and the Sikh people. We didn’t arrive from afar with a foreign ideology and try to implant it and enforce it on anyone – there can be no justification for the murder of Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and Jains by Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and Jains. We are all cousins.”

    The Muslims in Gujurat were not responsible for the rape of a woman in the 14th century. Just because an ideology is foreign, does not make it bad. So Muslims in India believe something different from other religions. So what? Why are their lives worth any less simply because they did not choose an indiginous religion. At least you have now abandoned the pretence that you follow the teachings of Guru Nanak- he would have been horrified at what you say (an educated guess, based on his life and teachings).

  160. Desi Italiana — on 11th December, 2007 at 9:02 pm  

    Damn WordPress ate my comment.

    Anyway, Indy, Kaalia, and Shin Bet’s absurd comments have turned this thread into something inexplicably ludicrous with talk about Aryans from thousands of years ago all the way to talking about Muslims in a way that reminds me what Nazi Germany sounded like when they talked about Jews, Gypsies, etc.

    All three of you have sunk into the depths of your pseudo “history” to huff and puff about supposed actions from 500 effing years ago. With all that energy and time that you have put into writing lengthy BS, I wonder if you are able to do the same for writing thoughtful assessments on the fact that the majority of Indians do not have access to sanitation, potable water, and food; that half the population lives in slums; AIDS as a huge epidemic; sex trafficking, child marriage, female discrimination, access to education, environmental degradation, and other severe inequalities and then offer solutions.

    Can you do that? And no, you cannot blame everything on Muslims, the Mughal Empire, and the reservation system.

    But I bet that you probably won’t be able to do this. It’s easier to be indignant and froth at imagined offenses from THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO rather than what is happening today and the real, everyday survival problems that the majority of Indians face. You’d rather talk about effing mandhirs from like 850 or more recently, in the 1500′s.

    At least no one can accuse you guys of lacking an imagination. It’s just too bad that some folks take this crap a little too seriously, which can have fatal consequences.

  161. Shin Bet — on 11th December, 2007 at 9:10 pm  

    rumbold

    Could you point me to examples of large-scale forced conversions by the Mughals please?

    Do your own research. Educate yourself. A good starting point would be the autobiographies of the Mughal Emperors (Babar-Nama and Tuzuk-i-Jahingiri for eg). But bare in mind I was referring to the MUSLIM invasions of the sub-continent, which includes all the armies that came before and during Mughal reign.

    The Muslims in Gujurat were not responsible for the rape of a woman in the 14th century.

    This is true and I have not said otherwise.

    Just because an ideology is foreign, does not make it bad.

    Stop being so general. I am talking about Islam specifically. Do you think it is a good ideology (as practiced, let’s say, by Aurangzeb?)

    Muslims in India believe something different from other religions. So what?

    It is not the belief I am concerned with, but the ideology and the history that accompanies it.

    Why are their lives worth any less simply because they did not choose an indiginous religion

    I never said their lives were not worthy. I said that they do not belong on the sub-continent.

    At least you have now abandoned the pretence that you follow the teachings of Guru Nanak- he would have been horrified at what you say (an educated guess, based on his life and teachings).

    His ideals are far too high for a person like me to follow, I confess. But it is because of people like me that his true followers still exist.

  162. Desi Italiana — on 11th December, 2007 at 9:10 pm  

    Deep:

    “So Muslims in India believe something different from other religions. So what? Why are their lives worth any less simply because they did not choose an indiginous religion.”

    I’d argue that Islam in the subcontinent has become “indigenous” over time. It is its own unique and localized product.

    And really, those “indigenous” religions– they all have threads which are arguably not indigenous. Ideas (which make up religion) are not really that authentic and indigenous :)

  163. douglas clark — on 11th December, 2007 at 9:13 pm  

    Desi Italiana,

    I agree completely. The Northern Ireland comment I made in 158 was based on a view of how history, in the hands of demagogues, can become politics. It was shite then, and it is really horrible to see it being trotted out like a new born foal, all over again.

  164. Desi Italiana — on 11th December, 2007 at 9:55 pm  

    Shin Bet:

    “A good starting point would be the autobiographies of the Mughal Emperors (Babar-Nama”

    You are full of crap. I’ve read that auto-biography, as well as others, and none speak of large scale conversions.

    And this is where all of your own comments are pathetically ideological and redundant: if the Mughal rulers were indeed as demagogic and fundamentalist as your own comments seem to be, then

    THE MAJORITY OF INDIA WOULD HAVE NOT REMAINED HINDU.

    Let me repeat that:

    IF MUGHAL RULERS HAD BEEN AS VICIOUS AS YOU SAY AND IMPLEMENTED LARGE SCALE CONVERSIONS, 3/4 OF THE BRITISH INDIAN EMPIRE WOULD HAVE NOT REMAINED HINDU.

    If you’re going to drudge (irrelevant) things up from the past, why don’t you do some freaking studies and research instead of conjuring up shit that you’ve read on Hindu websites.

  165. Desi Italiana — on 11th December, 2007 at 9:58 pm  

    Douglas:

    Thanks ;)

    Shin Bet:

    “I never said their lives were not worthy. I said that they do not belong on the sub-continent.”

    I wish I could say that people who write comments like yours do not belong in the sub-continent, but alas, I am not as fascist.

    But seriously. The subcontinent doesn’t need more folks like this, though.

  166. douglas clark — on 11th December, 2007 at 10:17 pm  

    But, Desi Italiana, you are inserting reason here. That will never do ;-) This thread lost all sense miles back.

    Anyway, what about Vedic Flying Machines?

    http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/hinduism/vimana/ancientvimanas.asp

    This clearly proves that Ancient Indians were at least as good as Ancient Atlanteans.

    I have in my mind, for that is what I call it, a historical competition between the Vedic A380 and the Atlantean 747-400.

    Whatever happened to them? Could we, hopefully, assume that this is all a piece of crock?

    This is becoming like a Nexus forum. I love all that stuff.

  167. Cover Drive — on 11th December, 2007 at 10:32 pm  

    This was a pre-planned pogrom to ‘teach them a lesson’. According to Human Rights Watch,

    “Mobs arrived by the thousands in trucks, chanting slogans of incitement to kill, and armed with swords, tridents, sophisticated explosives, and gas cylinders. They were guided by computer printouts listing the addresses of Muslim families and their properties. While army troops had been flown in to quell the violence, state officials refused to deploy them until after the worst violence had ended. In the weeks that followed the massacres, Hindu homes and places of business were also destroyed in retaliatory violence by Muslims.”

    The pogrom killed 1,000 people and left 200,000 homeless. Gujarat is still a divided society and Muslims have generally been pushed to the ghettos.

    The similarities between Gujarat and Nazi Germany are frighteningly similar: the targeting of minorities and secularists, the erosion of democratic institutions, and the consensus for a fascist state. It’s going the same way as Germany except slower. Democratic elections are just a charade.

    But Gujarat is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the activities of the RSS go. Other parts of India are not immune to it. As well as Muslims the RSS and other organisations in the Sangh Parivar are targeting Christians, Adivasis and Dalits.

    The politics of the RSS has cleverly created the fear of the miniscule minority just like the Nazis created a phobia against the Jews and blamed them for the plight of Germany. The fear of religious conversions is one that the RSS. The concept of Hindu nation for Hindus is just a pretext to get the majority community to buy into it. The aim is to abolish the values of freedom and equality. The agenda of a small dominant section of society is being propagated for all Hindus.

  168. Cover Drive — on 11th December, 2007 at 10:42 pm  

    Sorry, ignore: The fear of religious conversions is one that the RSS.

  169. Sid — on 11th December, 2007 at 11:20 pm  

    We didn’t arrive from afar with a foreign ideology

    Sikhism is a bhaktic (bhajans, guru veneration) syncretism of Hinduism (advayta vedanta) and Sufism (tawhid). In fact, Guru Nanak was known to have belonged to the Silsila of many Indian Sufi orders. Some of the definitions found here mention Sikhism’s acknowledgement to Islam. That’s the genius of India for you.

  170. Desi Italiana — on 12th December, 2007 at 12:18 am  

    Douglas:

    “Anyway, what about Vedic Flying Machines?”

    This clearly proves that Ancient Indians were at least as good as Ancient Atlanteans.

    I have in my mind, for that is what I call it, a historical competition between the Vedic A380 and the Atlantean 747-400.”

    How. Dare. You. Mock.

  171. Sid — on 12th December, 2007 at 12:20 am  

    Just to add to Muzumdar’s discomfiture, here is a simple article on Sikhism which spells out its links to Islamic mysticism. “Islam is foreign to India” might be a personal shibboleth but it’s not reflected in Sikh scripture.

  172. Desi Italiana — on 12th December, 2007 at 12:27 am  

    Everyone forgot about how the nuclear bomb is in the Vedas!

  173. Desi Italiana — on 12th December, 2007 at 12:53 am  

    Using pseudo history to justify atrocious mass murder of innocents today is irritating.

    Any cursory glance at Mughal history reveals the following:

    1. Mughal rule was highly decentralized, which right away beats back the stupid claim of “mass forced conversations” throughout the entire subcontinent. Most Mughal rule was concentrated in and around Delhi.

    2. Everyone always points to Aurang. Ok, but so what? Like, what does this prove? Under Akbar’s rule, Vaishnavite and Shivaite practices flourished. The construction of new mandhirs was commissioned.

    And if we point to atrocities carried out by kings 700 to 300 HUNDRED years ago, why always point the finger at Mughal kings? What about Ashoka, who is lauded as a peace-loving king and patron of Buddhism? That didn’t really stop him from maintaining brutal punishments and draconian measures for his subjects.

    (P.S. Since we’re talking about deplorable murders and forced servitude by individuals such as Babar, for my money, I’ll bet that it’s more important to scrutinize and passionately discuss human traffickers which take Hindu Nepali girls to India for the enjoyment of Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim men. But again, for the Hindutvadis, trivial matters such as these do not warrant discussion).

    3. Mandhirs vs. masjids. I really don’t care for this discussion, frankly I think it is stupid and irrelevant to argue whether 300 mandhirs were abolished or not centuries ago. But since the Mughal Empire has been villified (which, again, is ridiculous since it was not some massive, monolithic entity but rather decentralized and strong in some areas and non-existent in others) because ONE king and a few other invaders either razed to the ground or looted madhirs, let it be known that some mandhirs may stand on old Buddhist stupas.

    Learn to think on your own two feet rather than relying on whacky Hindutva websites which are so questionable, ideological, and in some places, frankly fictive. Do your own work.

  174. douglas clark — on 12th December, 2007 at 2:10 am  

    Desi Italiana @ 173,

    You go girl! The more women that question the ‘so called’ traditional stories, the better. Perhaps they were all male – och, I can’t think of the right word -how about, cock inflating, fictions? Or fantasies?

    You. Are. Right. To. Challenge. That.

  175. Indy — on 12th December, 2007 at 4:49 am  

    I give up. This blog has built up so much steam that no one is making any sense any longer.

    But in my last post to this thread I will say that to a certain extent I agree to the views expressed by Deep Singh and Shin Bet. But that is to a certain extent only, for even they are full of crap at times.

    See you all on some other thread, on some other day..

    Good bye till then..
    —————————————————
    (PS: first round of polling is done in Gujarat, the forcasters are predicting a landslide victory for Shri Narendra Modi)

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.