joey2

Saria is only for the poor and opressed in India, i havent seen any literate and well going muslim in india opting for saria so far.

btw, a great thing, there was a debate about article 377 being removed and it will be soon as there are many lesbians and gays, "lesbian portraits are drawn in ellorra", in the debate you know what the gay who was "for" the opinion was a muslim !!

So our govt needs to change these things as i personally know quite some les, and then needs to amend certain odds of society which doesnt allows to freely practice what one want.
btw i like the new Shia law..

donjasjit

Thanks Archer, some very good points raised by you. Let me express my viewpoint. As you have said the history of India is littered by numerous examples of muslim rulers who have raped and killed in our homeland. Infact the Hindukush mountains got their name because of the millions of women and children who died there on their way to enslavement in Afghanistan.

Islam has always been dominated by muslim fanatics who simply will not accept any viewpoint other than their own. That is why it is important to acknowledge the handful of muslim leaders who have believed in more humane treatment to people other than from their own religion. Islamic fundamentalists have always claimed that hindus and christians are always at war with them. If we categorize all muslims as villians then with what face will moderate leaders go to common muslims and explain to them that hindus sikhs and christains are not their enemies, that they want to live in peace.

Take the example of Iran. A few years ago, fed up with the policies of the mullahs the common people, especially women and students voted a moderate muslim into the presidency. Then what happened, America and the west behaved as if nothing had changed, it still regarded Iran as a pariah state. In the next polls the mullahs went to the people and said that a moderate leader had got them nothing, that infact the west was against all muslims not just fundamentalists. Now see what has happened,the mullahs are back in power and are merrily hanging 16 year old girls.

Yes I know the path is difficult and that most muslims do not acknowledge the tremendous sufferings some of their ancestors caused. But if we don't go that extra step and do not acknowledge the moderate voices in islam in both history and culture then these will be drowned out and we will have a whole army of jihadis on our hands.

So while I am no great fan of Akbar and he was certainly no saint I cannot dismiss the fact that it was he who got the Ram Chabutra installed at the Ram Janambhoomi site at Ayodhya. It was under his reign that four beautiful temples were constructed at Vrindavan and Somnath temple renovated. Similarly Dara Shikhon used to wear a ring with Om on it and was a great scholar of sanskrit.

If we dismiss moderate muslims like Akbar and Dara Shikoh and Sher Shah Suri and Shah Jahan out of hand then what difference is there between us and the people in Pakistan whose minds are poisoned at a very young age against hindus and India.

And under no circumstances should we present history as a battle between religions, because that is exactly what the jehadis want and believe. The jehadis are just applying that militant non flexible viewpoint to present circumstances.

Archer

Jasjit, by all means we should portray folks like APJ Kalam or Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan or Ibrahim Gardi (the topchi of the Maratha Army at Panipat) or Abdul Hamid..ditto for Dara Shikoh, or even Akbar (his blood thirstiness at Chittor can be also pointed to, to show that he did reform)..i have my doubts about Shah Jahan ..but still, there are definitely positive examples. Ustad Bismillah Khan even.

..at the same time, children should be just given a basic understanding but without harping on the religious aspect, but thats the problem..the stupid texts portray a view which is politically influenced when it comes to non Muslims (I picked up my class VIII th history text, dang at this age, it reads like a freaking manifesto of the CPI-M), ideally there should be little of the contentious aspect of any civilization here.

But, for adults, or even teenagers or the like, history should be free and frank.

What we have, is a situation where the mere mention of Islams bloody historical record has you tagged as "anti-secular". The problem here is that none of the moderates have stepped forward as well to correct it, as far as they are concerned, reform has to begin on the hindu -right, which quite correctly sees this as hypocrisy, and the divide only grows stronger. Take a look at the antics of SABRANG or many of the left-liberal orgs.

What we have here is a conundrum. The problem is that unless these issues are discussed and addressed, the wound will fester (that of muslims routinely resorting to force) and the muslim community starts developing a victim complex.

The problem is not of "presenting history" but what history actually was- it indeed was a struggle between civilizations, and at times, many muslims did (like ibrahim gardi) stand for their homeland. At the same time, it cannot also be denied that they were more the exception than the rule and that islamic rule in the subcontinent was anything but just (for the most part) ad set horrible standards in bigotry and bloodlust. So that an average muslim can look at it and say "never again, because this is the path that led to what others who thought like I am, did". Is the German populace of today shielded from what happened in WWII?

That kind of thought process is essential for reform. Because otherwise, there is denial. And then you have the victim complex, and lastly a sense of injustice, and you resort to violence. The cycle repeats.
What if every Sikh were to believe that the events of the 80's and Punjab insurgency were purely because of (say) Indian oppression- then would the insurgency ever end? If every Hindu stops discussing the pernicious effects of a formalized varna system (when it was originally fluid) would there have been reform? Here it is a case of Islam being perfect, and never having caused any sort of trouble - but - why is the world against us? This kind of denial is very harmful for society, because it allows irrendist attitudes to remain and strengthen. And what it also causes is arrogance- the sort that preaches exclusivism and caused the two nation theory- "we are your superiors, your betters, we have done no wrong, and we deserve to rule".

Which is why (imho) even though Digvijays webpage is indeed stark, its still a sign that at least someone can write about it, without pulling punches or being afraid to call a spade, a spade. I daresay he wouldnt have to do so, if it were an acknowledged fact that such events took place and it was common knowledge.

For the sake of todays Muslim moderates, or offending the oft quoted Muslims, do we ignore the millions (if contemporary accounts) are to be believed who fell under the sword, in invasions and because they were of a different faith and refused to convert? I think not- their fate needs to be acknowledged, the politics of modern India apart. They deserve at least that.

And modern Indian muslims need to acknowlede that the history of Islam in the subcontinent is bloody and partly responsible for the divide amongst communities. And they need to bridge that gap, and not just blame it on the "fundamentalists".

__________________
Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu

My bow is stretched for its task

Archer

And it is not merely restricted to Indian muslims-

-Turks refuse to acknowledge the Armenian holocaust
-Pak authors refuses to acknowledge their own shenanigans in 1971, blame the Sikhs/Hindus for the partition carnage
-The ME harps on the Americans, keeps relatively silent about the Shia vs Sunni violence
-The Iranian Prez harps on monotheism and zionism, engages in holocaust denial
-Saudi preaches routinely call non Muslims names on national TV compare them to animals, pigs

...

And all this is but a pale reflection of what went on in ages past.

The Islamic community has to step up and acknowledge that its side of the story has some issues, and that they need to push for reconciliation as well. Merely professing victimhood wont do.

Tronic

Archer but nothing will be achieved. I understand what you're trying to say but if we preach children about the atrocities commited and the massacres by Islam, a distinction between two seperate people arises. If we teach about the secularist Islamists, secular leaders and kings of India, even Maharaja Ranjit Singh's empire consisted of nearly 70% muslims and they played a huge part in his administration. This will instill a sense into the youth of India that we have in the past lived together and will forever live among each other in harmony. It accomplishes the goal of nationalism and at the same time keeps all the people as one, no one feels alienated. However, if this whole Islam vs. Hindu thing is preached, just think what effect that has on the people being preached to? Such stuff divides and not mends... It does much more harm to India then it does good, so then what is the use of it? I am aware that everyone must have a sense of the atrocities, but painting it as Islamic atrocities on India does not help us or mend us together at all!!! These were primarily atrocities commited by some Mughal rulers, that should be taught, no doubt. However, the main emphasis should be given to the secularists and examples of how we lived in harmony in the past if you truly want one nationalistic identity.... an Indian identity...

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

Archer

Tronic, I am not talking about kids; I am talking about adults. Somewhere, in serious circles, it has to be acknowledged that Islams record is not roses and cream, and it needs reform, or rather ordinary muslims need to be aware of the same. The points you are stating have been stated before; that was the exact reasonable premise that led to the taboo on discussing any sort of medieval discussion as it would "create problems", but non discussion has created more problems, it has created a backlash, since the entire attitude has been one of aggressively persecuting any voice which said the opposite (to the PC version) as a communal fanatic. End result is that the divide has hardened and been created. There are definitely no easy answers, but ignoring it wont let the matter go away. Ordinary Muslims continue to be brainwashed by their ulema about glorious islamic rule, about being more "islamic", without any idea of what that kind of creeping fundamentalism leads to. And more and more educated, moderate Indians would rather equally knock heads and support strong positions against their IM counterparts, in turn, instead of moderation, because they see this as Islamic intransigence. So the earlier method of ignore the topic, since it isnt pleasant, hasnt worked. What it has done, is paint the moderates/activists/intelligentsia as hypocrites, since they dont get worked up over shariah courts in India, but will get worked up over a Modi pointing it out. But the problem is that it takes a Modi to point it out. You see the problem? The Muslim community's leaders will not allow criticism of their actions- take a look at the antics of the new Islamic party formed in Assam for instance. The standard has to be equal for all. If a community has to reform, or to understand what it must avoid, for communal harmony, it first needs to understand what others also make of it, and why.

Tronic

Arch, that seems to be the routine talk around the world today, how much more should it be pastered up? and what good is us talking about another religion going to do? I'm not Islamic, you're not Islamic, so what good is our discussion on the shortcomings of Islam? The people having such discussions should be Muslims, not us. And we certainly can't force it upon someone to acknowledge their shortcomings or atleast acknowledge that Islam has been misinterpretated or whatever. This has to be done by muslims, no one can force it upon someone. The best we can do is provide a non-discriminatory environment where the moderates can turn to. If you believe that talking about the shortcomings of Islam will somehow clean them up, then you are absolutely wrong, it will increase them rampantly. In my opinion, it is not Islam which has to be discussed, it is these Imams and Mullahs which the spotlight should be on, not the entire religion. In my opinion, even the RSS is doing the same as some of these Imams, reminding how "Hindu" this country was and should be... And same thing you will see in Khalistani gurdwaras abroad. It is these extremists which have to be addressed, not entire religions!

donjasjit

Your point is rock solid. Agree totally.

Archer

Guys we are going in circles, so I'll stop here.

But to clarify- you are getting close to understanding the crux of the issue, or rather the points I was trying to make-

"I'm not Islamic, you're not Islamic, so what good is our discussion on the shortcomings of Islam? The people having such discussions should be Muslims, not us. And we certainly can't force it upon someone to acknowledge their shortcomings or atleast acknowledge that Islam has been misinterpretated or whatever. This has to be done by muslims, no one can force it upon someone. "

Exactly. And they will never debate this unless it becomes legitimate to discuss the record of Islam without it being taken as representing an anti-Islamic idealogy. Why blame the ordinary Muslim for not discussing the issue, when the ordinary non Muslim demurs!

But a dialogue is essential. Otherwise, push comes to shove, when it is too late and each side chooses the law of the jungle, ie violence to express its viewpoint. Unfortunately, its always a case of too little too late, and even the most moderate and gentle souls I have personally known of, have started becoming embittered about what they see as the uncompromising nature of Islam. That is not a good sign, and instead of seeing an awareness of how things have changed, the muslim community's self appointed leaders are still confrontationist- the deoband and shahabuddin for instance.After the Gujarat riots, as unecessary, and brutal as they were, apparently the Muslim community in Godhra and several other cities stepped up and decided to dialogue with their hindu counterparts, and stability has been established. Its not perfect, but some sort of discussion has begun. But just think- what if this had taken place before the riots? But it wont..

Anyways, I'll step back now. I daresay I am too cynical and this thread has ended up somewhere totally different.

digvijay

Jasjit,
Truth, however bitter, should be out in the open for every intelligent human being to make a judgement on. Who are we to decide what should/should'nt come out? Archer gave good examples about German History replete with Nazi barbarity and so is American history about American barbarity on Native Indians. These countries do not censor a thing and have created a population which TRULY feels sorry for what there ancestors did.

Nope. This is where history comes in handy. Moderate Islam can never win because there is no introspection. Educated engineers/doctors living in US/UK flock to Zakir Naik to ask him if wearing a tie is haraam or halaal!
Moderate Islam has never won even in the history. Msulims have lived peacefully with religions of the book but not with religions who are not mentioned in Kuran e.g. Zoraster followers / Hindus /Sikhs etc.

No not at all. I am too proud of my ancestors that with their swords they did not let the invaders convert my motherland into an Islamic state as was done for example in Iran i.e Zoroastrians were converted on the blade and those who fled to India in 8th century AD still adhere to there original faith.

No Jasjit. This is what Marxist Historians want us to beleive. Please tell me why is Hinduism any better then Zoroastrianism and why the flame of fire worshippers were extinguished in Iran? Ofcourse you cannot fall for the party line that Crescent came into Iran, the conquered fell in love with the new religion and converted hook line and sinker.


Quite the contrary actually. If the true picture is presented then ALL would get discouraged that when 1000 years of trying could convert, barely, a few percent of population in India, what good would a Jihaad do today in India?

-Digvijay

Tronic

Vijay, do as you like man, but like Jasjit said, you're not helping India in any way, infact, you're acting as a destructive force towards what India is today. I know you have made up your mind, and no matter how much we try to argue, your mindset will not change, so carry on. But just remember, there are plenty of Indians out there who would rather live together today then eye each other because of the past. To each his own. But the way I see it, the younger moderate generation has begun to see through these destructive forces driven in the name of religious cleansing. I just hope enough are seeing through.

Jay

I would say they were tolerant, but not secular.

Just a quick example on top of my head, the Kalabras ruled the ancient Tamil country where a lot of hindus got converted to Jainism and it was the prevailing state religion untill 6th AD after which the Pallavas and Pandya's gained power. Its after that hindusim got revived in South, read about Aadhi Sankara, the Pandyas, Cheras and Cholas. Infact Cholas are staunch Saivaites so anything other than Saivism is a no-no. Also, read about Kulothunga Chola and Ramanuja.

But I do agree that the arrival of Islam and Christianity brought more blood shed in the sub-continent than anything else.

__________________
A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

digvijay

Tronic,
You are mixing up things. You are justifying censoring of history just because it may make some people uncomfortable.
Examples were provided to you from Germany and America. If these nations can deal with there history in a sane manner what is up with Indians?

Please try and answer the questions I have raised in my response to Jasjit rather then discussing "qualitatively" i.e without data.

-Digvijay

gilgamesh

Islamic conquest of India is considered to be a holocaust of unimaginable proportions. Great modern historians like William Durant and others, even Arnold Toynbee, have acknowledged this. As per some estimates, upto 60 to 80 million Hindus were killed by moslem conquests and about 2 million people died during Gaznavid reign of terror alone.

Will Durant:

"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."

What we are seeing in India is a grotesque spin on our thinking process by the communists who want us to forget our history, deny holocaust, disrespect the dead victims by not acknowledging them, sneer at our heritage etc, etc. all in the name of keeping communal harmony.

Well, fcuk 'em! They can spew all they want, meanwhile the WWW(wonderful world of web) will offer alternative viewpoints for the discerning reader.

Tronic

No, I have never said censorship of history, your "Indian armies" piece is nothing but an amplification of Islam vs. Hinduism.... Infact it has so less to do with Indian armies and more to do with Islam... I'm against just that, amplification....

The Germans and the Americans are criticizing the leaders of the past and are mostly criticizing themselves. What you have got going on here is criticizing somebody elses religion and the emporers which carried out these atrocities are put aside or on the backburner, and Islam is the one which the main guns are pointing to. This is NOTHING compared to how the Germans and Americans criticize THEMSELVES for the past; infact this is in sharp contrast to that because here you are criticizing somebody elses religion!

There is nothing to discuss, those points are not relevant with India today, you are living in times in which not even your great great grandfather was born...