There has been a new wave of anti-Christian communal violence in Pakistan, with a riot involving as many as 20,000 people in the town of Gojra, west of Lahore.
We normally use the phrase “communal violence” in the Indian context, but reading the particulars of this story in the New York Times, the idea of “communalism” (a particularly South Asian expression of communitarian religious hostility) seems to fit. The recent riots were not on a huge scale — 100 houses belonging to local Christians were burned (compare to 3000 homes of Christians burned in the violence in Orissa last year) — but it’s still frightening and sad.
There is a history of this kind of violence in Pakistan. I don’t know the history in great detail, but Wikipedia has links to several similar incidents in just the past few years. (It often starts with the claim that someone has desecrated the Koran.)
One oddity in the Times coverage was the way they described the size of the Christian community in Pakistan, as comprising “less than five percent of the population.” I gather the number is more like 1.6% — why not simply say, “less than 2%”? Maybe that’s a nitpick.
As a response, the Christian schools in Karachi are on strike for three days. A number of arrests of those involved in the attacks have been made, and President Zardari has strongly condemned them. The Daily Times newspaper has a story with a subheader that the DPO (police chief) in the district has been “booked” as well, but the text of the story actually states that authorities are at this point just thinking about charging him with failing in his duty to keep the peace.
Incidentally, the town of Gojra is in the Toba Tek Singh District of Punjab, an area made famous by Sa’adat Hasan Manto’s story about Partition, “Toba Tek Singh.” Though we’re no longer talking directly about partition, that story about the madness that can sometimes overtake people in the name of religion still feels relevant. Here is a translation of the story, and Professor Fran Pritchett has both the original Urdu and a Devanagari version of the story linked from her site: here.
I love the way the mob shouts "American agents" before they kill the Christians. Our lovely "ally" indeed.
So basically the usually Sunni extremist groups that are tolerated locally turned their ire from the Shia/Ahmadi over to these poor Christians. The Sipah-e-Sahab is affiliated with the LeT so their local heroes. It's beyond me how these people could butcher children like that.
I hope we see follow-up reporting which shows whether or not the authorities were sincere in pursuing this case.
An additional link: Pakistaniat has more of an insider take, showing a fair amount of double-dealing by local (not national) authorities.
Who actually believes that someone would burn a Koran ?
Why do these clerics seize on / create these rumours ?
I hope the clerics are prosecuted as much as the actual perpetrators,
but sadly that will probably not happen, as most of the rioters never
get charged either.
In this day and age - why don't they teach reasoning skills in schools ?
The useless police should also be charged as well as local politicians.
Have always wondered...who was Toba Tek Singh? Was he an actual person? I know it's the name of a district in Pakistani Punjab, but was it named after someone?
Sad.
Amitabh --
Apocryphal story on Wkipedia to the rescue!
The town and district is named after a Sikh religious figure Tek Singh. Legend has it that Mr. Singh a kind hearted man served water and provided shelter to the worn out and thirsty travellers passing by a small pond ("TOBA" in Punjabi) which eventually was called Toba Tek Singh, and the surrounding settlement acquired the same name. There is also a park here named after the Sardar Toba.[citation needed] (link)
Christians are the most vulnerable people in Pakistan. They are very poor and a very high percentage of them work as sweepers and in other menial jobs. I believe almost all of them are converts from lower caste Hinduism who continue to work in professions they were in before they converted. The jobs performed in India by lower caste people are almost exclusively performed by Christians in Pakistani Punjab.
A shame at all levels.
100 houses belonging to local Christians were burned (compare to 3000 homes of Christians burned in the violence in Orissa last year) — but it’s still frightening and sad.
It is interesting you make this comparison. India being a secular nation, with all its flaws, has a much larger population of Christians, as well as other religious groups, well b/c it is a secular nation, unlike Pakistan who's schools still teach hatred for other religions, that has not practiced genocide on minority religious populations, unlike the Pakistani govt. If there is apparently less violence against Christians in Pakistan, well there aren't many christians or other minority religious groups in the country.
If there is apparently less violence against Christians in Pakistan, well there aren't many christians or other minority religious groups in the country.
Christian population in India: ~2.4%
Christian population in Pakistan: ~1.6%
Not that big a difference, actually.
What's the problem with communal riots and violence by the majority community against minorities, as long as the authorities say and think the right things?
Now compare the relative levels of political, economic, and cultural power enjoyed by Christians in the former against those in the latter.
The most cursory study of history will demonstrate the religious tensions on such a wide scale are rarely motivated by disagreements on matters of theology. Numbers matter, but so does money, access to services, and more nebulous stuff like "prestige" and "respect."
Jobs like....
- being architect of the Indian Constitution.
- being the youngest minister and first Labour minister in Nehru's government.
- being chief minister of a the most populous state in India.
...
...
...
Of course this is terrible shame, but the story has me wondering about the response of the victims. Why is there this knee-jerk reaction to go on "strike." Maybe I just don't understand the full dynamics of the situation, and I'm certainly only evaluating it from my own perspective which is radically different from those involved - I understand my own limitations of understanding this situation. And of course people should be keeping children home from school if safety is a concern. But I think, if the motivation is just for protest, isn't there a better way to protest that to halt education? Undermine the education and disrupt the schedule of this community even further? Similarly, why do political parties protest elections by not participating? How does that help or solve anything other than to undermine the election process itself and help the other party - the supposedly corrupt one - get elected? (I'm talking to you, Imran Khan...)
I agree. This is almost as ridiculous as saying that there is any racism in America after November 4, 2008. Hindus and Christians in Pakistan are doing well to, in general, After all, they have both been able to make Chief Justice, the pinnacle of the legal system, in Pakistan.
The latter might be satisfying in the short term but it almost never ends well.
Sulabh and Rahul,
I think you guys are misreading Pagal Aadmi's comment above.
He was actually trying to say that Christians in Pakistan are, in general, less well off economically than in India. While in India there is diversity as to who the Christians are (i.e., Goan Christians, Syrian Christians, Dalit Christians, etc.), in Pakistan the Christians tend to be within a somewhat narrower socio-economic range.
He was not making any comment about the treatment of Christians in India.
Some lines got crossed. Sulabh: Dalits are not doing that bad —> Rahul: Sarcasm.
Back to scheduled programing.
I wonder what kind of provocation these Christians engaged in that provoked the Muslims to act the way they did.
Amardeep: Yes, that is what I meant.
Sulabh: I was not suggesting that all lower caste people in India are doing menial jobs. My point is that in India, for example the toilet cleaning in most North Indian medium sized cities is done by Bhangis.
In Pakistani Punjab, some menial jobs like toilet cleaning etc. are mostly done by the Christians who were former bhangis but have now converted to Christianity.
Christian population in India: ~2.4%
Christian population in Pakistan: ~1.6%
I stand corrected on the numbers; I guess b/c in India so many Chrisitians are in influential positions and coming from Kerala their churches stand alongside the temples and mosques, it's easy to forget their numbers are small.
And that goes back the fact that Yoga Fire points out - it isn't just numbers; it's the freedom and ability to practice one's religion how they want and become full participants in their country. I find your comparison about the 3000 homes of Indian Christians and the apparently 100 homes of Pakistani X-tians so misleading; the comparison isn't there for a Christian in India and Pakistan.
I wonder at the amount of Christian missionaries allowed into Pakistan? The amount of influence that a Christian can have in India as opposed to in Pakistan? What happened in India against the Christians, could have very easily happened to different castes of Hindus. India is not, despite the ongoing shenanigans of many Christian missionaries, in the same abhorrent religious oppressive league as Pakistan.
Just looking at Wikipedia and Pakistani Christians and you see from the onset their lives are circumscribed and their basic human rights have for decades been violated. It's just unfortunate that the only comparison of Indian Christian and Pakistani Christians that ur blog entry makes is on numbers on two separate persecution instances and the legal, historical, cultural,political, and financial contex is left out. Imo, it just would have been better not to make a vapid numbers comparison of this violence and if you are going to bring numbers into it, please bring history, laws, and political and financial clout into it as well.
With the governments of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Zia ul-Haq, more stringently Islamic laws transformed Pakistan. While conversion to other faiths than Islam is not prohibited by law, culture and social pressures prohibit such conversions. Extremely controversial were the blasphemy laws, which made it treacherous for non-Muslims to express themselves without coming off as un-Islamic.
Pakistani law mandates that any "blasphemies" of the Quran are to be met with punishment. On July 28, 1994, Amnesty International urged Pakistan's Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto to change the law because it was being used to terrorize religious minorities. She tried but was unsuccessful. However, she modified the laws to make them more moderate. Her changes were reversed by the Nawaz Sharif administration.
:) Yep.
I was just commenting on whatever pafd wrote while Rahul was being Rahul.
I believe almost all of them are converts from lower caste Hinduism who continue to work in professions they were in before they converted.
Source please. For one, except for some communities like the Ashrafs this definition can apply to people of the majority religion in Pakistan. For another it is unclear if Christian evangelism is or has been as active in Pakistan among the lower castes or tribals.
Gurmando - "Who actually believes that someone would burn a Koran ?"
Even if the Quran or the Gita is burned, or if a lower caste Sikh dresses up as guru Gobind Singh, it should not become an excuse for Hindus to kill Muslims in India ; Muslims for killing Chirstians in Pakistan or upper caste Sikh fundamentalist to assassinate lower caste Sikh gurus.
Even if the Quran or the Gita is burned, or if a lower caste Sikh dresses up as guru Gobind Singh, it should not become an excuse for Hindus to kill Muslims in India ; Muslims for killing Chirstians in Pakistan or upper caste Sikh fundamentalist to assassinate lower caste Sikh gurus.
Manpreet -
You are applying logic here and that is not going to work.
Burning Quran is not equivalent to Burning Bible : Bible does not have a clause which says that the Bible-burner should be punished, however for some interpreters of Quran, a Quran-burner should have his/her gene pool finished.
Painting pictures of naked Hindu deities is ok as none of the Hindu scriptures explicitly prohibit that -however, some one wearing a fancy dress costume of Guru Gobind has to die as some Maryada was violated.
As long as it is NOT explicitly prohibited in the book (with a prescribed punishment) it is fair game.
It seems even Amardeep is not conflicted about this.
I'm not sure if that 2.4% number still holds true. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public LIfe's survey on pentecostal and charismatic movements in ten countries, including India, found that adherents to just those movements alone comprise around 2-6%.
"In China, Indonesia, India, Lebanon, Malaysia and Singapore, pentecostals and charismatics combined represent between 2-6% of the national population."
http://pewforum.org/surveys/pentecostal/asia/
There's pretty great information on the history of pentecostalism in India in there, like how the the movement's growth in India directly influenced its growth in Korea and interestingly enough, Chile.
Sorry for going off-topic.
I disagree. Even in the absence of books, popular culture and morality automatically provide codes which should be enforced by those who understand the religion best, and can grok the message of the religion even when commoners are unable to. It is just like how different people interpret religious books and their inherent contradictions differently, but there are those who are able to interpret them correctly.
Amardeep, I didn't misread PafD's comment. It was clearly an argument to try and garner some understanding for the plight of the minority community.
Manpreet - I wasn't at all implying that by asking who would / or why a Koran was burnt that
the punishment or subsequent actions were justified. Just the ridiculousness of the rumours.
The straightfaced description of blasphemy laws being "broad" and "badly misused" was the most hilarious part of an otherwise grim article.
Manpreet - by the way - officially, there are not supposed to be any castes in Sikhism - the very
tenets of the religion state equality among all peoples. (This is not to say that the culture as it has
developed over time isn't a different story - some still follow caste mentality).
After all, Hinduism also says that one who has awakened to the true nature of reality no longer sees the petty distinctions between crude matter so they will regard everything with the same love and respect. That's not necessarily how it turns out though is it?
I wonder what kind of provocation these Christians engaged in that provoked the Muslims to act the way they did.
Do you really have to ask.
Gurmando- I was just adding to your point; i know you were not implying that Quran desecration should be punished violently.
Glad we got that straightened out :) We cool. No communal violence here.
This was in the NYTimes story
Christians, who make up less than 5 percent of the entire population, are often treated as second-class citizens in Pakistan, where Islam is the official religion. Non-Muslims are constitutionally barred from becoming president or prime minister.
It's sad that little sikh,hindu and christians children growing up in Pakistan know that they will never be able to become president or prime minster because of there background.I wonder if people of Pakisani background living in the west who complain about racism will help fight against racism in there homeland.
I can imagine the swiftboating ads already with images of Kali dancing across the screen with severed heads dangling. . .
Forget little Sikhs, Hindus or Muslims. Little people, in general, do not have a shot at being Head of State.
Uhhh--Yoga Fire, you're kidding, right? Obama shows that a little Muslim kid can make it!
In defense of Sulabh, he was not justifying the action, just explaining the primitive nature of certain religions with rules in the book. What I was saying that what matters at the end of the day is not books, but how the religion is practiced and interpreted, whether there are books or not, since all these books are replete with contradictory statements. And we can always trust those who know better than us and are able to divine the true meaning and intent on the framers and the originals to tell us what is and is not justified by the religion, whether these justifications evolve from selective interpretation of books, or selective interpretation of history.
A Muslim born in Kenya to an African, nonetheless!
I don't know about that. Here's why Hindus and Sikhs will be popular with Americans.
That makes sense. In an Islamic country dhimmis (non-muslims) cannot be in positions of authority over Muslims.
In America it may be hard for a non-Christian to be President, but there is nothing legal or constitutional to bar it. It is up to the people through democratic process, which is why we were able to witness the first African American to be elected President last fall.
GurMando - "Glad we got that straightened out :) We cool. No communal violence here"
Of course, we are cool :). I have enough arguments with cousins and assorted relatives, who keep reminding everyone within earshot of their "Jatt" heritage, and what they think about papas, labanas, ramgarhias and chamars,
Rahul - "Forget little Sikhs, Hindus or Muslims. Little people, in general, do not have a shot at being Head of State."
Except in Lilliput and Blefuscu :)
Doesn't seem particularly South Asian though there are probably particularly aspects of it that can be tied to common origins in British India for Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh at least. Politics, community identity, and possibly resource distribution are inseparable in understanding communalism as a way of organising politics and society. Possibly other places that experienced British control (Norrthern Ireland,.Sri Lanka, Cyprus, Palestine, Nigeria - maybe include Canada in this). In this sense, you can sometimes change the labels (Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Tamil, Sinhalese, Arab, Israeli, Greek, Catholic, Protestant, West Pakistani, East Pakistani, etc.) and possibly see some common outcomes and maybe trends.
Just a working hypothesis.
Re the classification of people as dalits is problematic because the many communities that constitute the definition on paper have rarely if ever seen themselves to be a single community. There is considerable evidence from Ambedkar's own writings that he was unaware of the weight of oppression on the communities at the lowest rungs of the ladder, the tanners, cremation workers, and sanitation workers. Ambedkar was a Mahar, a community that had begun to emerge from the margins around the time he was born, and had already begun to carve out a space in civil society for itself founded on its long history of military service. But Jagjivan Ram was a tanner (I shall not use the equivalent term in Hindi) and had to take a tougher path to prominence. Of course his being a brilliant student at Benares Hindu University, being a outstanding (community) organizer, and also catching the eye of that great scout of talent, Gandhi, saw his found the Depressed Classes Association of India and bring in many talented party workers into the mainstream, such as the peerless nationalist Kakkan in Tamizh Naadu. Unfortunately the Hindus of India abandoned the dalits of Pakistan and Bangladesh during the Partition. When the Partition riots in Pakistan reached the safai karamchari neighbourhoods and the exodus began, Jinnah is said to have sent the police to put down the rioters and keep back the safai karamcharis - all Hindus - because in their absence no non-Hindu could be found to take over. Since then a large number of the safai karamcharis of Pakistan have embraced Christiantiy, but it is said - entirely anecdotal - that the vast majority among them are still Hindu, as it is in Bangladesh. The dalit underclass of Pakistan live in the shadows of shadows, and there is little that emerges a out their status. Even a committed and devoted reformer like Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak, who since Independence has done more than anyone to transform attitudes towards untouchability and sanitation and has freed 1000s of the oppressive burden of untouchability, has not to date turned his attention to the travails of safai karamcharis of Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Everyone who is anyone of consequence in Pakistan has studied at the Christian run schools of Karachi, Lahore, and Pindi. So these beutiful institutions may not suffer violence when it breaks out. But the vulnerable are the folk who live in the smaller towns and must go about their business without the protection of the law, as is the norm not only in Pakistan but in any developing society. In India it helps that there is a vigourous political culture where rash and violent actions have consequences. In Bangladesh too despite the proclamation of an Islamic republic, the people at large do not reject their Bengali heritage or teir Hindu roots. In Pakistan there isn't any brake whatsover on such excesses and despite many well meaning individuals and a fairly balanced English press, the outlook for the country's minorities is bleak.
The Pope has got their back, which is good for them:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/03/pakistan-christians-shut_n_250166.html
It matches the American affection for secret Muslims, the Brit fondness for Pakis, and the Indian affinity for Christians.
The Pakistani Christians are mainly of the choora "sweeper" caste. I know this cos I grew up amongst many people of choora caste in UK. I knew a guy who had relatives in Pakistan - he told me his niece was kidnapped by muslims and never seen again. He told me that Christian women being kidnapped by muslims was a common occurence.
I'm of chamar caste, which also untouchable, and my uncle told me that as a kid the chamars & chooras were treated like shit by higher caste Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. Nobody ever gave a shit about the lower castes.
Manpreet - I am the same way - have never understood how the most macho
of my fellow Punjabis can go around (usually while hammered) bellowing how "Jatt" they
are as if it was a statement of Sikh pride, yet not understanding the antithesis of their
meaning in relation to the principles of the religion. So ridiculous.
SomeBodyUK - You are so right: lower castes in India/Pakistan are discriminated against by Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs and, at least in India, by Christians. Yes, Dalit Hindus who convert to Christianity and Islam hoping to finally escape centuries of discrimination, soon learn that their new co-religionists do not treat them much different than their previous ones.
A college friend who is of Syrian Orthodox stock, told me that her mother, an ex-Indian Ambassador to an EU capital, and a self proclaimed fabian socialist, would prefer an upper caste Hindu son in law over a dalit convert to Christianity. Such is the hold of this cancer on our society. Disgusting.
i believe like muslims in india, hindus in bangladesh, christians in myanmar, etc., christians & hindus in pakistan complain about census undercounts meant to marginalize them. i think this explains some of the vagueness as to numbers.
re: caste & christianity, i have heard the same thing as others. that being said, i am interested in the fact that many of these christians have "muslim" names. that suggests either assimilation to majority naming conventions, or the possibility that some of these are the descendants of those who converted from islam before partition (when this was possible).
Wonder why those lower caste Hindus converted to Christianity instead of Islam? If being a Hindu in Pak is tough, then how is being a Christian any easier? I am sure some of them are Christians due to faith, but the choice to go to the "safety" of Christianity is puzzling.
No one (apart from conspiracy theorists) has complained about undercounts of minorities in India. The census in India is an uncontroversial business and does not require irresistible force as the elections do to be completed. Preparations for the 2011 Census are already underway and apart from the frequent demand to count jati-based groups (across religions) there have been no other controversial demands. Conspiracy theorists are found not only among the minorities, but also among the Hindus! As for the decline of the proportion of Hindus in Pakistan, I am not sure how much of an absolute decline it is. While before Partition Hindus and Sikhs were about 20% of the population (or 7 million) of modern day Pakistan, today they account for only about 2% or about 3 million. If the Hindu/Sikh exodus was very large about 6 million(?) leaving behind about a million (?), it would mean that their population has tripled since then compared to the total pouplation that has increased from 37 million to 175 million - more than a fourfold increase. I am not sure of any other trends wrt to comparative vital statistics etc. Declining fertility rates due to violence and deprivation have been reported among the expelled Kashmiri Pandits, who currently are the only refugees anywhere in their own land. And my numbers are from memory. Corrections welcome.
As for Muslim names, or Arabic/Persian names, Christians do add the honorific Masih to their names, or the messiah. Beyond that Pakistani Christians aren't doing anything different that Lebanese/Syrian/Palestianian/Iraqi/Iranian Christians aren't with their names
Here's an interview with Gp.Cap. Cecil Choudhry, PAF (Retd), one of the best known Christians of Pakistan and another one
interesting
As a Pakistani Christian myself, I have innumerable (probably too emotional) responses to the various comments. Perhaps I should work my way backwards.
Thamizan says
The easy way for some isn't the right way for everyone. Thankfully, in America at least, we have a choice. Somehow I doubt the pope has much influence in rural Pakistan.
Suki Dillon wrote .
Not racism. But yes. Christians and non-Christians in the west have been working for years to influence policy/legislative decisions in Pakistan. But we need more help.
Well if you come from an area where the upper caste Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims treat you like shit, then why would you want to be a member of their faith? Christians never did Punjabis any harm on a relgious basis, so that's why some converted to Christianity. A lot of chooras were Sikh and Muslim too. Some of them still have names that would be considered Muslim - e.g. Faizal. A lot of chooras families have been Chiristian for over 100 years.
Converting to Christianity doesn't work in terms of social uplift anyway - if somebody tells me that they know a Punjabi Christian, the first thing that crosses my mind is the he/she is probably a choora.
Even my US born cousins get mad if you call them "Hindu", even though they technically are, they'd rather be known as Punjabi!
In the Indian context "Communalism" seems to have come out partly from a deep set reluctance to call a spade a spade and partly to demonize Hindutva parties. To the best of my knowledge, it was not used commonly before the post Ram Jamnabhoomi rise of the BJP in the late eighties / early 90s.
Communal in any other country's context has different, clear meaning. It is bad enough that it is used in India, but why spread the use of this stupid use of the word to other countries --especially countries with a substantially different view of religion and rights?
Why not just say, "rioters targeted Christians" instead of "anti-Christian communal violence" ?
I'm currently in Pakistan (Lahore) and reading the newspapers and blogs here, it's clear that people are shocked and appalled by this incident. In today's DAWN (August 4), the editorial argues that the blasphemy laws themselves should be repealed because if all citizens of the state are meant to be treated equally than it doesn't make sense to have faith-based laws which are inherently discriminatory. It is absolutely true that even the very accusation of "blasphemy" is often used to oppress others, even other Muslims. It's very difficult to prove whether someone has or has not committed blasphemy and of course it becomes an emotional issue for people and they cease to behave rationally.
However, I don't think this is simply a Pakistani issue. Minorities all over the subcontinent have faced opression and violence. Amardeep was absolutely right to point out the violence in Orissa. Demonizing Pakistan or Islam isn't going to help here (not saying anyone has done that so far, but just making a point), we have to understand the reasons that anti-minority violence takes place in the subcontinent and in other places in the world.
>>but the choice to go to the "safety" of Christianity is puzzling.>>
It's not that puzzling. Christians are "people of the book", fellow monotheists. Hindus are, by contrast, heathens fit only for elimination. People of the book are given greater "protection" in Islam.
Jyotsana, great comments. Please consider starting your own blog with a compilation of your posts. They're really enlightening.
Perhaps they were not lower-caste Hindus, but lower-caste Muslims? Or have been Christians for many decades? Or migrated to the area from elsewhere?
I don't know the answer but the evidence that caste structure exists in many religious communities in South Asia today poses a lot of problems for assuming that they were not Muslim or something else beforehand.
I think Christians all over the world (where they are minorities) tend to have names with one of the first or middle names reflecting the local cultural naming conventions and the other name a Biblcal name. I think this is a way to feel like part of mainstream culturally as well (same as Hindus / Chinese in US having short Christian names).
That's right. India,Pakistan, Bangladesh.. it's all the same, no difference.. India has blasphemy laws to prosecute someone saying/writing/indulging in anything against Hinduism. :-)
That's true. I don't think anyone gave a shit about lower castes before the concept of one man one vote democracy when numbers started to make a difference. I think you should add Christians to the list. If you read about the Christian missionary movements in the 1800s they had different strategies for converting different categories of heathens and some were actually indifferent to converting the lowest among the rung and discouraged those conversions.
That's true. I don't think anyone gave a shit about lower castes before the concept of one man one vote democracy when numbers started to make a difference. I think you should add Christians to the list. I
I don't think that's true at all Ponniyan. There have been so many movements in south asian history (including the advent of buddhism and sikhism) and movements within Hinduism that specifically addressed the oppression of your fellow man b/c of caste. I am a product of that - I'm from a lower caste that was deeply oppressed in Kerala, but a spiritual movment about a 100 years ago really changed the socioeconomic condition of not only lower castes but the culture and govt of that area as well.
In India nearly EVERY COMMUNITY is a minority. And most have their grievances, that sound legitimate. Marathis complain of collusion and discrimination against them in Mumbai (which is why they support Shiv Sena), Bihari's and UP Bhaaiyas in Mumbai face harassment and extortion. South India has been often discriminated against by Center in the course of allocation of the budget and Central Services (industry, etc), and other regions can claim the same. The North East were exploited because of their natural resources. Farmer's have been discriminated against, by price controls, and closed food markets in an economy with high inflation and open markets (leading to poverty/ suicides). And that's without even coming to Caste, where even the favorite bugbears of most Pakistanis, Brahmins, have faced discrimination (since as far back as the 1930's when a whole lot of Tamil Brahmin's dropped their surnames and/or moved to different parts of the country to avoid discrimination in getting jobs)
Amardeep was trying be "balanced". And in doing so, portrayed a false moral equivalence.
There is no comparison between India and its neighbors. India discriminates against Hinduism legally (I have pointed out the articles in the constitution and laid out examples on how this has worked against Hinduism several times previously), while its neighbors protect their
In Orissa, the Christian community has been rather aggressive, to put it charitably. They have engaged in a slew of illegal activities, including murders and assassinations and collusion with Naxalites.
In most countries, liberal or not this will lead to a backlash
The only difference is when something like this occurs in Western Democracies, the governments take action against the non-traditional / outside influence swiftly and firmly before it gets to this point. (Scientology, the Osho Movement, the blind mullah, the free love Osho Movement,etc).
Let's look at the oft quoted Staines case. In a western democracy, Graham Staines, with his high profile in the locality, would have been deported (it had been years since his visa had expired.) In an Islamic country, he would have been put in jail a long time back. In a communist country, hewould not have been let in at all. Only in India, with its vote back politics, would things have been allowed to simmer.
'm currently in Pakistan (Lahore) and reading the newspapers and blogs here, it's clear that people are shocked and appalled by this incident. In today's DAWN (August 4), the editorial argues that the blasphemy laws themselves should be repealed because if all citizens of the state are meant to be treated equally than it doesn't make sense to have faith-based laws which are inherently discriminatory. It is absolutely true that even the very accusation of "blasphemy"
Thanks Kabir for letting us know some of the reaction in Pakistan. I'm glad people are shocked and appalled and I hope it will lead to more protection of all religious minorities (legally and culturally) in ur country and that possibly they can have the same rights, including socioeconomic, political, financial and legal rights as your fellow Muslim.
As you can see from my comment I completely disagree with you as far as the numbers game. I do agree with you that we have to "understand why anti-minority violence" happens anywhere. B/c when you try and understand why? you bring in cultrue, history, laws, socioeconomic power, political power, and again history and there are vastly different conditions that minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh face than in India. even if you read what happened in Orrissa, it'd be difficult to see this as a religious matter but something different. Also we know that Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus who are low-caste, all have the same legal rights (some have surprising more legal rights)- India has a long a way to go to improve and live up to the best tenets of its culture and constitution but we are at least on the right path.
Amardeep was trying be "balanced". And in doing so, portrayed a false moral equivalence.
well said dizzydesi - everything about ur comment.
PS,
I'm guesing you are talking about Sree Narayana Guru and the upliftment of ezhavas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Narayana_Guru
I'm quite aware of that. But in that case, Sree Narayana Guru is born into the Ezhava community (not one of the elite castes).
Being disempowered and being a minority are two different things. To take a very transparent example, women are usually the majority in most countries, but generally disempowered. That's why although there are certain issues that relate to majority/minority status (e.g. how much representation the Tamil elite could possibly seek to gain in the Sri Lankan Parliament through the political system), the focus should be to put that in the context of power / disempowerment and understand that there is a social framework of hierarchies operating in which individual people can be up on one, down on another, down on many, up on many, etc. This has little to do with numbers except insofar as liberal democratic theory uses numbers to convey legitimacy of a group's interests.
Another way to look at this is to look at this as such: White, heterosexual, male, able-bodied, upper class, citizen people are a distinct minority in the United States but as individuals will enjoy better life outcomes, all else equal. The group of people that on one or more of the adjectives above (to which you could add others) doesn't fit the description is an enormous majority (but is less powerful).
So that's one way of viewing the way society is organised in the United States. But you can always reorganise the way you look at things: Black, same-sex attracted, female, disabled, undocumented working class people are a distinct minority in the United States, but as individuals will enjoy worse life outcomes, all else equal. The group of people that doesn't fit the description above is an enormous majority (but is more powerful).
In reality, most people are in neither of these two extremes, and even on these adjectives, its not binary - which makes more of a matrix - e.g. South Asians, Chinese people, Japanese people, etc. on the racial hierarchy ALONE are probably better off than Black people and worse off than White people.
Another complication is that most people may be up - maybe even at the top - of one social hierarchy - but much lower on others or maybe int he middle of many or maybe at various points on all of them.
A third complication is that different hierarchies may carry different weight at a particular point in time and contexts. It is now easy for straight Black people, all else equal, to gain the legal and social rights of marriage, but difficult or impossible for non-Black LGBT people. Conversely, it is easier for nonBlack LGBT females, all else equal to walk into a store without being followd around by the clerk, while it is harder for Black heterosexual males.
Finally, this too is not enough in understanding social hierarchies because it's dynamic (e.g. see 'How the Irish Became White') and different identities can move up and down the ladder on a given hierarchy. And the weightings of all these can change.
All this is to say that it's both complicated and comprehensible at the same time- but you have to look at these identities in terms of what they mean about social power in context and over time, not in terms of absolute numbers, in order to make any sense of them.
:)
1. I think these ideas that one can compare violence in India and Pakistan and Bangladesh as completely discrete things are not that analytically valid given that they're interconnected and have to do with a lot of other features as well as what state they're a member of, but additionally, it's really just not helpful. Instead of saying 'Pakistan has communal violence, but India does too!' or 'India has communal violence, but Pakistan does too!' it makes more sense to me to say that 'Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh all have communal violence' because the point is not which state is better, but that there are people being subjected to communal violence in all of them (and that includes both the obvious victims as well as the entirety of society that is affected by these issues in a variety of ways).
2. Proponents of states with a liberal democratic ideology will always point to laws and the existence of that liberal democratic ideology to justify inaction on social conditions. That is exactly what happens in the case of India. It doesn't mean that India is better or worse, but that there are serious on the ground issues which affect various groups of disempwoered people, including on religious identity, caste, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic status, race, and other ways of grouping people. It's those issues we should probably pay attention to - just as in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Proponents of states with a liberal democratic ideology will always point to laws and the existence of that liberal democratic ideology to justify inaction on social conditions.
No, this is not why I'm pointing out the very huge difference of the laws, culture and history of Christian minorities in India. As Dizzy Desi has pointed out, there were very different dynamics that had less to do with oppression of Christians, but rather about violence, support for a group that condones violence, etc.
Proponents of states with liberal democratic ideology use this political system to bolster change, as can be seen in India and the US. And the INdian govt and it's people and press are a lot more scrutinized and self-critical of themselves and the liberal democracy thing allows this scrutiny.
It's a shame that because India has the cultural self-confidence to create a liberal democracy, and therefore welcomes criticism and scrutiny by its very laws, that is then lumped in with the rarely self-critical govts (b/c freedom of speech and religion is so much more circumscribed b/c these govts lack any confidence in their societies) of other South Asian or other Asian countries.
I remember speaking to a Kurd who'd given a talk on the oppression of Kurds in Turkey - he felt the formation of a separate Kurd nation was the correct route to take. I asked him, could he not work within Turkeys political system, as happens (and yes, I understand, just like in the US India is flawed) to enact change. And he specifically said, no, it's not like India (addressing me), we don't have the legal and political avenues that make such change possible as in India.
But in that case, Sree Narayana Guru is born into the Ezhava community (not one of the elite castes).
I am talking about Sri Narayana Guru - but what does his being part of a lower caste contradict what I said? Maybe I'm not following your point. My point was that, even w/o this thing called votes in modern India, (course Indian/South Asian culture does have a long history of something like "representative democracy" at certain times and certain regions; though in school this is never mentioned and unfortunately we only learn about Greece) there have been social movements. I'm not saying that these spiritual movements, whether led by Guru or Buddha or Sufi Saints, did not also involve social, political and economic influences.
I think it's far too easy to look at this violence through the lens of religion, because on the surface that's what it seems to be about. The perpetrators are Muslim and the victims are Christian. However, could it not be that the perpetrators have chosen to attack the victims under the pretense of "blasphemy" for other reasons, not connected to religion? As commenters have pointed out above the anti-Christian violence in Orissa was perhaps not primarily religiously-motivated. It's too early at this stage to say why precisly Gojra occured, but I would resist the temptation to argue that there's something inherently wrong with (some) Muslims who are by nature intolerant. We don't know the dynamics of this particular village.
As regards the "In India, nearly every community is a minority" arguement, it's right to an extent though in the religious dimension the country is overwhelmingly Hindu just as Pakistan is overwhelming Muslim. There have been many instances of anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, etc, violence in India. The point is not which country is better or worse, but that communalism and majoritarianism are problems that are common to both. We need to understand the root causes of this phenomenon, of which the religious dynamics are not necessarily always the most salient.
PS
I was responding to somebodyUK
I meant higher caste Hindus/Muslims/Sikhs/Christians and Narayana Guru is not one among them.
India's neighbors, like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka fare considerably worse than India in a global ranking of "risk of genocide, mass killing or other systematic violent repression." (Bhutan does better.)
The Christian community in Pakistan (just like the Hindu community) is bifurcated. There are urban, well-educated, English-speaking Christians in the cities, and there are poor, lower-caste origin, Punjabi-speaking Christians in the villages (for Hindus, substitute "Sindh" for "Punjab"). Your average Dawn reader meets only the former (same for the average commentor at PakDefenseForum -- I think). Elite social attitudes about Christians are shaped by their personal experiences.
Comment 75 is about right -- but I think in this case, different parts of the minortity community are empowered and disempowered.
I don't follow you. How does pointing out the difference in logic between looking at the size vs. the relative amount of power that different groups in societies have explain away an instance of violence? It's just another way to look at it, and in my opinion, more helpful, so you can make sense of the fact that the U.S., for example, has not had a woman president and has not even close to parity in the U.S. Congress. How does that have any correlation to violence, which is a tactic that different groups for different purposes use?
That's not why it's being lumped in. It's because it shares a history with Pakistan and Bangladesh, one that can go a long way in explaining the roots of communalism in all three places (the practice of categorising and stereotpying of people, the attacks on syncreticism through tools like the census, the competition for resources in a position of scarcity, the manipulation by elites in whatever identity to mobilise people on the basis of certain kinds of factions to secure power and resources, the use of national borders to drive wedges among people like Punjabis, Bengalis, poor people, lower caste people, etc.).
That doesn't mean there aren't differences or that they haven't followed three different trajectories- it just means that there are some things that are similar, though they might take different forms. It also exists in a world where tearing down a mosque in Ayodhya will lead to violence against Hindus in Dhaka, because politicised religion used to increase the level of violence doesn't stop at a border when there's a common history. The common thread is the way in which religion is being used and its relationship to politics, social oragnisation, and violence, not the religions.
This is one of the reasons I believe the Hindu Right is not even pro-Hindu, when you consider Hindus as people, just like the elite that created Pakistan- many of whom were from Muslim-minority provinces- can't really be said to have given enough thought to the welfare of the Muslim people they left behind. This is also why, whether from a religious or a secular framework, communalism as escalating violent conflict by various communities - needs to be rejected and social cohesion within and across borders emphasised instead. Not in the name of a secular ideology, but in the name of human beings and their welfare.
And many people do do this, regardless of what the dominating state ideology is in their county of residence, citizenship, or or origin.
I agree with some of the comments above that when minorities in India are killed or their property destroyed, it is because they asked for it. Staines should be grateful he was burnt to death only once. It really shows how kind the majority is.
I blame the Congress Party for this.
Why is this piece of information useful except for parlor trivia? Is it accurate and what does it mean if it is? What effect is it intended to have on the conversation? Does it have those effects, and if so, are they beneficial or counterproductive in a broad strategy of reducing violence, communalism, and overall mistrust among people (whether South Asian or otherwise)?
Why is this piece of information useful except for parlor trivia?
LOL, DrA, I think it's much more important than vapidly pointing out that in this particular Pakistani Christian oppression 100 homes burned but in the Indian Orissa Christian oppression 1,000s burned.
I don't know what to say to you. We are talking past each other.
As for the Ayodah incident, how silly once again, in this argument that you bring that incident as an example of the all-encompassing communal violence, w/o understanding the history behind it.
As for you description of the communal violent similarities of South Asia, that can be used to describe the situation from East to West north to South in the African continent, or many regions in Asia, Middle East, Europe (god the continuing violence and the recent genocide in eastern europe, an area always caught inbetween conquering empires) - if you are going to describe communal violence in that way, it encompasses the world, where there's been continued genocide of ethnic and religious groups unlike what has happened in India.
My final point on this matter is that I believe Pakistanis and Bangladeshis (and Indians with a false sense of equality) need to stop comparing themselves to India, and look at the cultural and legal chauvinism that goes hand in hand with a state created by a certain brand of religion, their situation will not improve. Until they start looking at the uniqueness of their own communal problems, and not pointing to India and saying "hey but 3000 homes were burned here", they miss the opportunity to bring some human rights to their own people, who just want to exercise their religious rights, socioeconomic rights, political rights just like their countrymen, who practice the right type of Islam. They need to think of their solutions based on their unique situation and stop pointing to the US and India and saying things like "blacks are oppressed in the US", "Muslims can't practice their religion freely in the US - the US is a hypocrisy"; "indian dalits are oppressed!" - they need to deal with the uniqueness of their own damn problems that unfortunately continually seep into India.
Seriously, even as Mona Eltahawy writes about how many of the Muslim world leaders use Isreal as their opium to keep the constituents drugged so as not to worry about the state-sponsored killings of their own people by their own govts and often non-existent women's rights, or the state of their immigrant labor, I believe many of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi govts are using India's problems as their opium and many of their constituents (the majority?) are readily smokin' it.
I think that piece of information is to point out the truth. :-)
Dr Amonymous, your tactic of complexification seems only intended to obscure any differences you don't find congenial. the classic game is complexity, subtly and nuance for thee, but not for me. would you be excited about someone who wanted to contexualize american imperialism in its socio-historical framework ad infinitum when you're trying to point out real injustices? i doubt it, i am sure you believe some things are true, right and indisputable despite the layers of nuance which might be larded on top of them. complexity does not entail symmetry.
pakistan is not saudi arabia, or even iran, but the muslim equivalent of hindu nationalists long ago won the argument, pakistan is self-consciously an islamic nation. even secular elements who reject sharia as national law won't dispute that point. that is the political and social consensus, period. there is obviously no equivalent consensus in india about whether india is unapologetically a hindu nation. these superficial differences are surely indicators of average differences in lived experience of religious minorities (bangladesh seems an intermediate case, shifting based which party is in power).
sad...real sad
This has to be fixed, stat! Thankfully, Indian political leaders have learnt to use the specter of Pakistan, invasions from a thousand years ago, or scary migrants to awaken the masses.
Are there any examples of a state sponsored mini-pogrom against minorities in Pakistan? The Muslims saw it in Gujarat 02 and the Sikhs got it in Delhi in 84. No one will dispute the fact that the government was involved in both these massacres. I guess the Pakistani army in BDesh in 71 would qualify though that would be more analogous to the Kashmir situation where the army is trying to put down an independence movement. Any such state sponsored pogroms in Pakistan against the Hindus or the Christians?
I doubt proponents of states with liberal secular democaratic ideology argue sufficiency. They might, however, argue necessity. If they are wrong on that, where are the counter-examples? If human history is too short, what is the vision -- stateless world, social conditions changed by a state that is neither liberal nor democratic, social conditions changed by other forces (community/market) despite the best attempts of state?
Razib is right on in # 91 though I don't believe Dr. A was necessarily trying to do that.
I think it is indisputable that de jure (based on laws enacted by the government) discrimination against minorities in Pakistan (especially disfavored ones like the Ahmadis) is very different from India. I am not aware of any de jure discrimination against minorities in India.
De facto (facts on the ground) discrimination against minorities in Pakistan might arguably not be that different than in India or is it? Maybe someone more knowledgeable about Pakistan can talk about that.
De facto (facts on the ground) discrimination against minorities in Pakistan might arguably not be that different than in India or is it? Maybe someone more knowledgeable about Pakistan can talk about that.
i think that this sort of argument going to two major problems:
1) you can cherry-pick indicators which favor your own hypothesis
2) india and pakistan are not symmetrical in terms of diversity & size. i.e., india has around 1 order of magnitude more people than pakistan, so do 100 killed in pakistan = 1,000 killed in india? or perhaps the appropriate comparison is gujarat vs. punjab, in which case there's more symmetry. india is really diverse, and it seems that the 'communal' problems are much less salient in the southern cone, for whatever reasons. OTOH, the "cow belt" has the same sort of tensions which are normal in pakistan. i inspected some vital stats once, and it seems that in many ways the "core" hindi-speaking areas of northwest india cluster with pakistan more than they do with south india.
*rimshot*
I guess the Pakistani army in BDesh in 71 would qualify though that would be more analogous to the Kashmir situation where the army is trying to put down an independence movement.
Problems in East Pakistan never started as an independene movement.
In 50s, it was a language issue.
In 1970, Awami Laegue won the assembly elections, and the majority in National Assembly. They wanted Sheikh Mujibhur Rahman to be the PM of Pakistan, as per constitutional law and rights.
But Gen. Yahya Khan refused.............miiltary stepped in on March 25th 1972, and independence movement started on March 26th, 1972. Some believe 1-3 million died in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1972 only.
Scales, do we ever keep that context in mind.
Correction: Some believe 1-3 million died in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1971 (between March and December) only.
It is easy to be judgmental of these actions in hindsight. But the army needs to be given the ability to act freely to maintain national security in tense situations.
NOT if they are not Muslim they don't!
The Pope may not have direct influence, but since so many countries have a sizable Christian population, many of whom are Catholic, his speaking out about it will give it coverage and political support to put pressure on Pakistan to stop the violence. The Pope and the larger global Christian population can do for the Pakistan Christian population what no Sikh or Hindu can do outside Pakistan for the Sikh and Hindu population, not at the same magnitude nor without some risk of being seen as having religious bias, or without India being dragged into it in a tu qoque argument.
Manpreet - I am the same way - have never understood how the most macho
of my fellow Punjabis can go around (usually while hammered) bellowing how "Jatt" they
are
So anybody want to join me in getting a "Jatt 4 Life" tattoo.
Suki Dillon - "So anybody want to join me in getting a "Jatt 4 Life" tattoo."
Only if we will also get the biggest Khanda tat on our backs. JAtt for Life, indeed, this one and the next ones. [by the by, do we, Jatt Sikhs, believe in reincarnation or are we too hard core for that sissy stuff]
I've always wanted a jatt for life, but they tend to be endogamous, unfortunately.
There is a colonial legacy that pre-dates Partition, one that applies not just to lower caste Hindus. Britian went through a evangelical awakening in the 1800s and Christian missionaries were actively seeking Muslim and Hindu converts in the subcontinent. Some historians say the missionary activity played a major role in trigerring the 1857 war.
Ref-
Imperial fault lines : Jeffrey Cox
The Indian Mutiny 1857-58 : Gregory Fremont-Barnes
That was not my intent, though I will fully admit I'm reluctant to make oversimplified statements about how society is organised in Pakistan as opposed to India and then attribute a value judgement to one state or the other in a space like this one. What I was attempting to do (poorly, as usual) was to question and, to some extent, to take apart some of the myths in the ways in which people are talking abotu communalism here and that I myself was led to think about them in. I always hope someone might, at a later date might come along, and reassemble some more accurate statements into a coherent story because i agree that adding complexity and deconstruction are tools, not answers.
If I overstated the case for commonalities, that was in response to what seemed to me to be a near total lack of appreciation for anything Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India might have in common - and specifically Pakistan and India. For example, to take a pretty inoffensive example, if you read the line in the post that talks about how "we" usually think about communalism as an Indian phenomenon - well that's just weird to me. Why would something that substantially has its origins in things like the British census or the political economy of competing elites in the British empire or the way resource competition plays out in economies of scarcity be unique to India but not present at all in Pakistan and Bangladesh, particularly since the three states have existed for less time than they were part of the same colonial state?
And continue forward to India being secular and Pakistan being Islamic. The Indian state is secular in the sense that it is pluralistic - but Indian politics is dominated by contemporary understandings of Hinduism and religion is very present. But to me the whole argument is silly - neither the Indian state nor the Pakistani state have very much capacity to enforce a particular relgion on the entirety of their populations - it usually happens in pogroms like this one. So what is the relationship of the state (at different levels) to incidents of this type?
Similarly, why is communalism being defined in term sof religion only but not linguistic, caste, or any other group identity and always betewen religions rather than within them. If you changed the word to sectarianism or violent resource competition or violent group politics, then do the differences in communalism in India and Pakistan appear as striking to you?
the point is not that India and Pakistan and Bangladesh are 'the same' (which would be a weird and meaningless assertion anyways) - there are major differences because they are not identifical things in the world have have existed somewhat independently of each other for a while now. Nor is the point that matters are so overly complicated that you can't possibly make any positive assertions (which woudl be overly timid), The point is that the communal mode of politics is deepseated and has economic, piolitical, and historical roots, and these are either through disconnected but shared circumstances, shared origins, or transnational politics present today in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. You can disagree with the argument - or say, maybe, that it's too strong or that I'm givintg too much import to commuinalism in India but not enough in Pakistan, but don't say I'm not making an argument. It's just not fleshed otu in my head enough for me to put it into three lines and then translate to the outside world in a way that will actually help move forward a conversation rather than to simply state 'this is what i think' to be followed by a genocide scorecard ;)
This is exactly the problem - who is it that won out in Pakistan? Some people say it was Punjabis and Mujahirs, some people say it was the military, you say it was Islamists, some people say no one won and it is chaos, some people say it was the agrarian landholding class in conjunction with the military, some people say it was ISI, some people say it was the U.S. and Britain., some people say it is the politics of sectarianism itself that has won our. There is probably some truth to all of these, so the question becomes which ones are most relevant in understanding the issue of communal violence against Christians. To be hoenst, I don't know the answer to that.
However, I do know that simply stating that Pakistan is self-consciously Islamic is not enough of an explanation or a tool for actually addressing communalism when there is frequent intraMuslim sectarian violence in Pakistan. Since Europe was politically self-identified as Christian in the 17th century, can religioyus violence against minority ethnic groups then be safely understood without considering the Reformation or the 30 years war? Did the Anglican church split off from the Catholic Church earlier for reasons of religious doctrine? Obviosuly not. So why explain communalism in Pakistan without explaining in detail and empirically accurately exactly hwo being identified as an Islamic state leads to communalism?
Anyway, that's the argument - or rather question - it might be right, it might wrong, but there it is.
Pakistan might be a "self-conciously Islamic state" according to razib, but there is definately a section of society that firmly believes in secularism and progressive ideas. It is possibly for a country to be a majority-Muslim state or a "Muslim homeland" while still providing protection and equal rights to its minority citizens. This is the confusion that persists in the idea of Pakistan: Was it intended to be a liberal muslim-majority state or an "Islamic State" run by sharia? Certainly, the father of the nation, Jinnah, envisioned the former and not the latter.
If you read the letters to the editor in today's (August 5) Dawn, they uniformly condemn the Gojra incident and the use of blasphemy laws to oppress minorities (and really anyone else one wants to oppress). They also argue that part of the problem is the culture of intolerence that is present in Pakistan and unfortunately seems to be growing. I think though, that we should refrain from making generalizations about an entire country. There are definately "Islamists" in Pakistan but there are also a lot of average Muslims who go about their lives, practice their own religion, and don't believe in oppressing others who don't share their religion.
Kabir - "It is possibly for a country to be a majority-Muslim state or a "Muslim homeland" while still providing protection and equal rights to its minority citizens."
Can you provide an example of a state where minorities living under a majority Muslim rule were treated fairly?
Jinnah may have had some ideas of establishing a liberal state but nothing he did after assuming office was in any way in line with his ideas. As Tarek Fatah (in his latest title Mirage) has described, Jinnah assumed almost dictatorial powers over the state, creating a supreme role for himself with no scope for checks or balances, sowed the seeds of conflict in Bangladesh by calling for the imposition of Urdu in E.Pakistan and revoking the status of Bengali as an official language, and all but suspending the Constituent Assembly. It is impossible to find any intellectual, leave alone others, advocating for the amendment of the Constitution of Pakistan and transforming the character of the State into a secular one, in law. Not even a humanist such as Pervez Hoodbhoy (who in private I am sure supports such an idea) dare go that far. The argument that fundamentalists in Pakistan do not win electoral majorities is mistaken. When every political party in Pakistan subscribes to the idea of an Islamic State, they differ from one another only by degrees. There is currently no Muslim majority state where the rights of religious minorities are protected by a religious constitution. Turkey is a proclaimed secular republic and Indonesia swears by it multi-syncretist-traditions and both go to great lengths to keep fundamentalism out of politics.
Seriously, LOL! I mean, really, just look at the treatment of Filipina maids in Saudi, or the treatment of the Chinese in Indonesia.
Note to self--stop donations to Yale 'til they close down their "South Asian studies" effort, which is demonizing the straight, Indian, Hindu male as the bogeyman of the subcontinent. . . . Dad, please stop it!
Also, "up" is the new "down."
Can you provide an example of a state where minorities living under a majority Muslim rule were treated fairly?
I will get back to you, when I find out.
Razib wrote:
Razib wrote
but the muslim equivalent of hindu nationalists long ago won the argument, pakistan is self-consciously an islamic nation. even secular elements who reject sharia as national law won't dispute that point
Really? Pakistan is a Muslim nation, and can be a Secular Muslim nation. The concept of Indian secularism does not translate across the Radcliffe line (nor does it really work there -- there is always a normative majority in any country).
Obviously, the pendulum swung a long way in the Zia years, and hasn't swung back far enough yet. But, unlike the idea of a ethnically neutral turkish state, the idea of a Secular Muslim state in Pakistan still has legs.
Only if we will also get the biggest Khanda tat on our backs. JAtt for Life, indeed, this one and the next ones. [by the by, do we, Jatt Sikhs, believe in reincarnation or are we too hard core for that sissy stuff]
We jatts are too hardcore for everything.
By the way Manpreet, this friday night I will be outside the 7-11 at 2 in the morning in my car blasting Jazzy-B out of my car stereo and hitting on 16 year old drunk girls and of course wearing a big khanda necklace living jatt life. Hope to see you there and bring backup, just in case some chamars or chooras dare to show up. JATT LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
or bangladeshi, nepalese, or north easterners in india.
Really..
I got a few ....
open secret
larger half
clearly confused
acting naturally
liquid gas
seriously funny
Microsoft Works
military intelligence
unbiased opinion
Was it intended to be a liberal muslim-majority state or an "Islamic State" run by sharia?
The Constitution of the State is where you find the answers. Why should a Christian/Hindu/Sikh be subject to Sharia law?
one more...
secular hindu nation
Oh! that exists only in the minds of shiv sainiks like you.
he..he..
Amaun wrote:
The Constitution of the State is where you find the answers. Why should a Christian/Hindu/Sikh be subject to Sharia law?
In Pakistan, Christians and Hindu/Sikhs are governed by their own personal law, (Christian law, Hindu law), apart from the infamous Hudood ordinances brought in by Zia -- that's criminal law. Same goes in Bangladesh.
As for "original intent" -- post-paritition Pakistan was governed byt he sanme Anglo-Indian law as India. The 1973 constitution provides no insight into Jinnah's intent.
But I think blasphemy laws takes precedence over every personal law. :-)
bjp, please. ram janmabhoomi ftw!
Islamic Provisions in the Constitution of 1973 (Source: Wiki)
* The name 'Islamic Republic of Pakistan' is selected for the state of Pakistan.
* Islam is declared as the state religion of Pakistan.
* Steps shall be taken to enable the Muslims of Pakistan, individually or collectively, to order their lives in accordance with the fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam.
* Steps shall be taken to make the teaching of the Qur'an and Islamiyat compulsory, to encourage and facilitate the learning of Arabic language and to secure correct and exact printing and publishing of the Qur'an.
* Proper organisation of Zakat, waqf and mosques is ensured.
* The state shall prevent prostitution, gambling and consumption of alcohol, printing, publication, circulation and display of obscene literature and advertisements.
* Only a Muslim could be qualified for election as President (male or female) and Prime Minister (male or female). No restriction as to religion or gender on any other post, up to and including provincial governor and Chief Minister.
* All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Qur'an and Sunnah and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such injunctions.
* A Council of Islamic Ideology shall be constituted referred to as the Islamic Council. The functions of the Islamic Council shall be to make recommendations to Parliament and the Provincial Assemblies about the ways and means of enabling and encouraging the Muslims of the Pakistan to order their lives in accordance with the principles of Islam.
* The President or the Governor of a province may, or if two-fifths of its total membership so requires, a House or a Provincial Assembly shall, refer to the Islamic Council for advice on any question as to whether a proposed law is or is not repugnant to the injunctions of Islam.
* For the first time, the Constitution of Pakistan gave definition of a Muslim which states: 'Muslim' means a person who believes in the unity and oneness of Allah, in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of the Islamic prophet, Muhammad, and does not believe in, or recognise as a prophet or religious reformer, any person who claimed or claims to be a prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after Muhammad.
* The state shall endeavor to strengthen the bonds of unity among Muslim countries.
* The Second Amendment (wef 17 September 1974) of the 1973 Constitution declared for the first time the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (Qadianis) or the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of Islam (Lahoris) as non-Muslims, and their leader, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who had styled himself as a so-called prophet of Islam, as a fraudster and imposter Nabi.
damn, pakistan has it good. hum bjpvaalon have constant been upset about that christist sonia maino gandi, a BABYSITTER, running the country. if only we could prevent such people by constitution.
i don't see why this is so silly. there's nothing intrinsically anti-liberal about islam that can't be said of other religons. i think once liberalism, and capitalism in particular, is introduced the more doctrinaire aspects of a religion get tempered, like with Christians in the usa. i mean we call those who want voluntary prayer in school fundamentalist here. if that fundamentalism, most religious minortes in muslim dominated states would take it.
of course a "Muslim state" or "Muslim homeland" is problematic, but if thats sounds like a layover before liberalism. Islamic hegemony isn't going away overnight so we must be pragmatic. if we can get a bunch of israeli like states at this point, i'd take it.
Suki #115,
I am sure these actions can be defended in painfully earnest academese. It’s very good for that sort of thing.
Just to make clear the current constitution of Pakistan (the Constitution of 1973, part of which is quoted above) is not the original constitution. Jinnah did not envision a state where all laws had to be in accordance with Quran and Sunnah. That I think is probably the most problematic part of the current constitution, apart from the restriction that only a Muslim can be President or PM and the declaring of Ahmedis to be non-Muslim. I personally think the "Islamic Republic" part is problematic too. I wish the state could just be called the "Republic of Pakistan". The government also has no right to legislate who is or is not a Muslim. That is an issue simply between the individual and his or her God. For what, it's worth, the religion of an individual should not matter to the state. At least that's my point of view.
Regarding secular-minded individuals in Pakistan, I can point you to the articles written on Pak Tea House by Yasser Latif Hamdani (YLH), a constitutional lawyer who is a firm advocate of "Jinnah's Pakistan". He has his quirks, including a sometimes irrational visceral reaction to India and all things Indian, but I believe he is sincere about being committed to secularism. His articles and many of the comments will show some of you that not all Pakistanis are "Islamists" or bigoted Muslims and there are people fighting the good fight in Pakistan as well. We should support them rather than generalizing about or denigrating an entire nation.
Hmm... why don't you move to Pakistan - you can start a Shiv Sena Shakha somewhere in FATA. Don't forget to live blog the ground breaking ceremony of your Shakha.
why i will move to pakistan. much better to show others who is king in india. too much migrant and muslim trouble already to be fixed here.
# 125 - I wasn't aware. . Given how passively the Pakistani intellectual elite, and even the not so elite blogers and public commentators accept the hold of Islam over their constitution tells me that, ideologically, an overwhelming majority of Pakistani Muslims are the Islamic version of Shiv Sena/RSS.
Why have there been no mass protests by Pakistan's lawyers, which we know they are capable of, demanding that the current constitution be trashed?
To keep things in historical perspective and balance from an academic point of view -
From the NYT article -
And the US govt. was so silent in the 80's just coz of cold-war whereas such a hue and cry was made for Saddam. Human right subservient to political expediency ?
how so? does it include zardari jokes.
Kabir -- It was "Republic of Pakistan" from June 1962 to December 1962, under the original Ayub Khan constitution. The first amendment to the 1960 constitution brought back God's adjective.
On the web, Manan Ahmed and Ali Eteraz have both written about a deconfessionalized "Pakistan for Pakistanis". It's one of those foundational debates that Pak will be having 100 years from now. Anyway, here are some reminisces by Ardeshir Cowasjee with some quotes from his old Friend M.A. Jinnah in the Dawn:
Q. Could you as governor-general make a brief statement on the minorities problem?
A. At present I am only governor-general designate. We will assume for a moment that on August 15 I shall be really the governor-general of Pakistan. On that assumption, let me tell you that I shall not depart from what I said repeatedly with regard to the minorities. Every time I spoke about the minorities I meant what I said and what I said I meant. Minorities to whichever community they may belong will be safeguarded. Their religion or faith or belief will be secure. There will be no interference of any kind with their freedom of worship. They will have their protection with regard to their religion, faith, their life, their culture. They will be, in all respects, the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste or creed. The will have their rights and privileges and no doubt along with this goes the obligations of citizenship. Therefore, the minorities have their responsibilities also, and they will play their part in the affairs of this state. As long as the minorities are loyal to the state and owe true allegiance, and as long as I have any power, they need have no apprehension of any kind.
Things didn't quite turn out that way.
And btw has any of the journalists and human rights campaigners tried to really find out if Koran was really desecrated besides dissecting other issues and stories ? If it has really been then a share of the blame falls on the Pakistan Christians too for all
the mess though murder and riots are unpardonable.
Sulabh - "Hmm... why don't you move to Pakistan - you can start a Shiv Sena Shakha somewhere in FATA. Don't forget to live blog the ground breaking ceremony of your Shakha."
Good query, why indeed?
I, too, have wondered as to why the brave Shiv Sainiks and Bajrang Dal soldiers or Ram's soldiers, don't, en mass, march into Pakistan to help their suffering Hindu brethren or carry out commando style raid to kill/capture Dawood Ibrahim. Heck I would be impressed if Bal Thackeray along with his Sena would display enough guts to go to Kashmir to reclaim the dozens of Hindu temples and thousands of Hindu homes lost to terrorism. If that too is inconvenient, how about ridding their fair city of the Dawood Mafia?
The only thing these thugs can do is beat up girls who dare drink or beat up on dirt poor laborers who move from poorer northern states to Bombay, where they subject themselves to back breaking work and abominable living conditions, so they may feed their families.
FRom # 135 - "As long as the minorities are loyal to the state and owe true allegiance, and as long as I have any power, they need have no apprehension of any kind."
What sort of a "secular" statesman threatens the citizens of his country? Can you imagine Nehru making similar veiled threats against Muslims in 1947?
Atul sez:
i am not shiv sena. please support bjp for hindu rajya in india.
Thanks Ikram for that comment (# 135). I hope some day we can go back to "Republic of Pakistan" and leave God outside the official business of the state.
@ Manpreet (#132), the lawyers haven't protested to change the constitution not because some of them don't believe that this should be done, but because this probably would be a completely impossible task at the moment given the unfortunate hold that islamism has on our society. That's not to say there aren't people who deeply believe in secularism, we probably just don't have a critical mass yet.
@Priya, I think people generally agree that the allegations of desecration were false and that the mob was just using that as an excuse.
Coming back on topic, for those who don't read Pakistani newspapers:
In pursuance of chief minister’s announcement, Faisalabad Commissioner Tahir Hussain gave cheques on Tuesday to heirs to seven Christians who had died in communal violence Gojra on Saturday.
He gave three Rs500,000 cheques to Almas Maseeh, two to Mohsin Hameed, one each to Victor Maseeh and Junaid Ikhlas
Earlier, Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif said financial assistance would be given to affected families of Christian Colony in two days.
On the same page, another story
Two people were killed when a mob of hundreds of people, including factory workers, attacked a leather processing unit near Muridke on Tuesday over alleged desecration of Quranic verses. Leather unit owner Sheikh Najeeb Zafar is among the dead.
Police however, suspected that desecration issue had been used to instigate workers of East Leather Factory, Khatiala Virkan, and people living in nearby villages to settle some personal score.
Police said there had been a simmering dispute between the management and workers over the wages issue.
Why do these things aways happen in Punjab?
The government also has no right to legislate who is or is not a Muslim. That is an issue simply between the individual and his or her God. For what, it's worth, the religion of an individual should not matter to the state.
Kabir --- Not so easy. The idea that "religion" is a personal affair and should have nothing to do with the "state" is a modern idea and relatively new, even in the West. We have to remember that for a long time, the Pope was both the religious and the political head of Christendom. The separation came later and not without a struggle. It is true though that this separation, arising from developments in Christianity and European history, has come to be seen as being "natural" by most in the West and westernised Indians (of whom I am one) and westernised Pakistanis (of whom, you are one I assume) . But India and Pakistan are not Western societies and it is hardly surprising that this idea of "separation" is not accepted by many within these states.
In 2006, following Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to George W. Bush, the political scientist Mark Lilla wrote an article in the New York Times exploring how this separation arose in Europe and the US and it's implications for present-day politics called "The Politics of God." It makes for enlightening reading. You can see it here:
http://tinyurl.com/lzt63x
For those of us who live in India and Pakistan, there is no easy answer about how to deal with the conflict between those who subscribe to the idea of a "separation" and those who don't. At least, I can't think of any good answer.
Kabir,
Of relevance here is also Gandhi's own take on politics and his differences with the route charted by the European enlightenment -- in particular, the separation between "religion" and "politics." The philosopher Akeel Bilgrami has a book "Gandhi, the philosopher" exploring these and other facets of Gandhi's thought. The Wikipedia page on Akeel Bilgrami gives a few links including some interviews where you can learn more about his work on Gandhi.
Suresh, You are absolutely right. Seperation of church and state only occurred in the West after centuries of brutal religious wars. Hopefully we in South Asia can learn from the European experience and realize the benefits to be gained by confining religion to its sphere. In hetrogenous and diverse societies, the only way to protect the rights of all citizens is by treating them equally regardless of the faith (if any) they profess. I have no problem with people living there lives according to Islam (or any other religion for that matter), but they don't have the right to tell me that I have to live my life in that manner as well.
I don't believe in religious states anywhere in the world. That is why I think the creation of Pakistan as an Islamic state was wrong regardless of how secular an Islamic state Jinnah envisioned. To me this was an act of selfishness and bigotry on a extremely large scale at the cost of many lives during partition and ever since. It is a country created to favor Muslims whether they be secular or religious. If the land truly was supposed to be secular it should have never existed to favor Muslim needs over other religions in India. By creating an Islamic state for Indian Muslims, it made itself vulnerable to Islamization like it has seen over the decades. Of all the religions, more countries are Islamic than any other religion - by far.
"...The very name Pakistan inscribes the nature of the problem. It is not a real country or nation but an acronym devised in the 1930s by a Muslim propagandist for partition named Chaudhary Rahmat Ali. It stands for Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, and Indus-Sind. The stan suffix merely means "land." In the Urdu language, the resulting acronym means "land of the pure." It can be easily seen that this very name expresses expansionist tendencies and also conceals discriminatory ones. Kashmir, for example, is part of India. The Afghans are Muslim but not part of Pakistan. Most of Punjab is also in India. Interestingly, too, there is no B in this cobbled-together name, despite the fact that the country originally included the eastern part of Bengal (now Bangladesh, after fighting a war of independence against genocidal Pakistani repression) and still includes Baluchistan, a restive and neglected province that has been fighting a low-level secessionist struggle for decades. The P comes first only because Pakistan is essentially the property of the Punjabi military caste (which hated Benazir Bhutto, for example, because she came from Sind). As I once wrote, the country's name "might as easily be rendered as 'Akpistan' or 'Kapistan,' depending on whether the battle to take over Afghanistan or Kashmir is to the fore."
I could have phrased that a bit more tightly, since the original Pakistani motive for annexing and controlling Afghanistan is precisely the acquisition of "strategic depth" for its never-ending confrontation with India over Kashmir...." Slate, Christopher Hitchens http://www.slate.com/id/2200134/
All of India should have belonged to all Indians of all religions under a secular democracy, which neither favors nor discriminates against any religion, minority or majority.
"...It was because I and my organization never believed in the formula that Muslims and Hindus form separate nations. We do not believe in the two-nation theory, nor in communal hatred or communalism itself. We believed that religion had no place in politics. Therefore, when we launched our movement of "Quit Kashmir" it was not only Muslims who suffered, but our Hindu and Sikh comrades as well...." Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah in the UN Security Council Meeting No.241 held on 5 February 1948 http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/abdulun48.html
That was the dream that should have come true.
The British had their own reasons for supporting the creation of an Islamic state out of India:
[Turkey] had lost her leadership of Islam and Islam might now look to leadership to the Muslims of Russia. This would be a most dangerous attraction. There was therefore much to be said for the introduction of a new Muslim power supported by the science of Britain ... It seemed to some of us very necessary to place Islam between Russian communism and Hindustan.
- Sir Francis Tucker, General Officer-Commanding of the British Indian Eastern Command. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC23Df04.html
Pakistan was meant from the start to be specifically a new Muslim power not only in South Asia but for other nearby regions in this game against Soviet Russia by the British.
Sameer, it's fine that you don't believe in religious states. Neither do I for that matter. But, Pakistan (and Israel) exist, and we can't change this fact. While the quotes you have pulled make some good points, specifically that the name "land of the pure" can be seen as discriminatory, I have to disagree with two points. First, Hitchens unequivicolly states "Kashmir is part of India." That is simply false. Kashmir is disputed territory and has been disputed since 1947. At this point, it is neither unequivicolly part of India or Pakistan.
Second, I agree with your wish that Partition not have occured, but part of the reason why it did occur was the (legitimate?) fear among Indian Muslims that in an independent India run by the Congress party of JLN, British domination would simply be replaced by Hindu domination. After all, Hindus did make up the overwhelming numerical majority. Whether this fear was unjustified or not, you and I were not alive in the 1940s and thus were not privy to the concerns of Jinnah and the proponents of a seperate Muslim state in South Asia.
Finally, Pakistan and India now exist seperately. All of us have to deal with that reality. It is in our best interests for our two countries to have good relations with each other, as both Prime Ministers Singh and Gilani realized at Sharm El Sheikh. As MMS said to the BJP: "War is the only alternative to dialogue." I am glad he has chosen dialogue. Perhaps at some point in the future, some European Union type situation can occur in South Asia thus "reuniting" the subcontinent in a manner of speaking while not replacing the independent nations of Pakistan and India. But for that to occur the secular and progressive elements in Pakistan need to be supported. We already have an uphill fight with our Mullahs. We don't need Indians questioning the validity of our country's existence.
Problem is fundamentaly religion..needs to become officially a secular state
http://www.apnaorg.com/research-papers/maini-1/
Me thinks that this is relevant to the arguement
After all, Hindus did make up the overwhelming numerical majority.
Not so, about 25 % of the undivided India was Muslim. At that time, a lot of British Indian army (again quarter), and civil servants were Muslims. One should remember, during the World War II, Churchill and Jinnah had warmed up to each other quite a bit, and that is one of the reason (main one being Direct Action Day and subsequent events in Noahkali and aroud) that WhiteHall took two nation theory very seriously.
More so, the Muslim elites (Muslim League and elites from AMU, etc.) of North India (Delhi/ UP) thought they would never get an equitable power sharing with the Congress after the independence. One should remember they were serious discussions on separate electorates in independent Indian (I am glad that never happened).
Even Jinnah did not believe in two nation theory, at first. It was around 1939-1940, he changed his mind. One should remember, Jinnah was once a top tier Congress leader, and made his name as a lawyer in a sedition case (he argued an Indian asking for independence was not committing sedition).
There is a strong thought (that even includes people like Ayeesha Jalal) that Jinnah never wanted partition (he never gave the ownership of his house in Mumbai, and one pointed even wanted Pakistan Constituent Assembly meet in Delhi). It was a power negotiating strategy that went too far because of Congress calling the bluff again and again, later he could not turn his back on legions of his dedicated supporters, and also his sister (who was the greatest supporter of two nation theory, and took care of him when he secretly suffered from TB).
This all said, Pakistan is now fact of life.
I meant: he never gave up the ownership of his house in Mumbai,
Kush, two points. First, 75% Hindus is what I call an overwhelming numerical majority, one can see how some people would fear that even in a democratic set up, this numerical majority would oppress the minority. After all, at this point, the constitution of India had not been written, for all these people knew, the Hindu majority would have pushed through a constitution calling for India to be a Hindu state. That this didn't happen doesn't make these people's fears illegitimate. Hindsight is always 20/20.
2) I am well aware that Jinnah didn't always want Partition. Many Pakistanis know about the Cabinet Mission Plan and that it was only after Congress's failure to accept this, that Partition perhaps became inevitable. If Ayesha Jalal is right and the demand for a seperate country was a power negotiation strategy that went too far, that is one of the ironies of history.
I do not believe a minority should get their own country just because some in the minority - many Indian Muslims did not share the two state idea - want it. They can base it on fear or arrogance or whatever. At the end of the day, they selfishly grabbed land for themselves to create a land for people of their faith. That Pakistan and Bangladesh exist now fine. No more land should be selfishly grabbed by any other religions or again by Muslims to create their own religious state out of what remains of India. I hope one day both Pakistan and Bangladesh will cease to be Islamic states and be true secular democracies where no religion is the religion of the land, no religious law is the law of the land where anyone of any faith or no faith at all can hold any position in the country.
A land based on Islam will place non-Muslims as dhimmis. What happened to Sikhs and Hindus with the jizya tax in the links above and to the Christians now who are accused of defaming the Koran is what happens to dhimmis. Can communal violence happen anywhere in the world - yes it can and it does. But with Christians, Sikh, Hindus mentioned in the prior articles it is because they are, in Islam and in Islamic state, specifically dhimmis.
(Kashmir is a legal part of India - see all the legal documents on that site. But let's not get into Kashmir here. I'm sure there will be plenty of other opportunities in the future.)
The dhimmi protection is conditional: "Conditional protection. The protection of the Dhimmi is withdrawn if the Dhimmi rebels against Islamic law, gives allegiance to non-Muslim power (such as Israel), refuses to pay the poll-tax, entices a Muslim from his faith, or harms a Muslim or his property. If the protection is lifted, jihad resumes. For example, Islamists in Egypt who pillage and kill the Copts do so because they no longer pay their poll-tax and therefore are no longer protected."
I think minorities should obey the majority way of life and the accepted dharma practices of the majority culture or be prepared to face the consequences.
Kabir - "but because this probably would be a completely impossible task at the moment given the unfortunate hold that islamism has on our society."
I am presuming that means that, a strong majority of Pakistanis like the constitution the way it is, , right? Meanwhile, in India, the Hindu fundamentalist find themselves increasingly marginalized and out of power, and yet you insist on drawing moral equivalence between Pakistan and India. Go figure.
@sameer:"At the end of the day, they selfishly grabbed land for themselves to create a land for people of their faith. That Pakistan and Bangladesh exist now fine. No more land should be selfishly grabbed by any other religions or again by Muslims to create their own religious state out of what remains of India"
selfishly? That's from an Indian perspective and therefore understandable. Because the concocted Indian nationalism itself which "selfishly" wanted freedom from the Britain ( Imagine an India ruled by Britain would look like today)considered any other nationalism within its created boundary as blasphemy - the Khalistan nationalists, the Bodoland nationalists and the Kashmirian nationalist are also given names by the Indian nationalists - terrorists,pro-Pakistanism,religious fundies etc.
75% Hindus is what I call an overwhelming numerical majority
At that time, Hindus were less than 70 %, because Sikh and Christian population has been close to 2-2.5% each. Then you have to include 1% others - Buddhists, Jains, adivasis, etc. Sure, it is still a huge majority.
You have to remember Congress never pushed a Hindu nation concept - with Gandhi, and Nehru (an avowed agnostic who would even freak out President of India, Rajendra Prasad would visit temple ceremonies in independent India) at the helm. Also, people like BR Ambedhkar (the father of Indian constitution) or C Rajgopalachari (Rajaji) had open disdain for organized religion, and they all lot of clout. Rajaji even advocated dealing with Muslim League and Jinnah. At that time, Hindu (Hindutva) as a political entity was a side show - look at the election results of Jana Sangh (forerunner of BJP) in elections from 1950s to1990s. At one point, RSSS (then it was RSSS instead of RSS) was banned in India after Mahatma Gandhi being shot by Godse. RSSS always argued that even Godse and others were members of RSSS, but the organization never played a role.
I would fully agree that Congress as a whole was not in any mood to share power with Muslim League in 1940s.
People tend to forget that at that time, history is mostly dictated by cult of personality, and emotional appeal rather than some platonic concepts.
"I am presuming that means that, a strong majority of Pakistanis like the constitution the way it is, , right? Meanwhile, in India, the Hindu fundamentalist find themselves increasingly marginalized and out of power, and yet you insist on drawing moral equivalence between Pakistan and India. Go figure."
Your fabricated outrage apart .I thought it all happens because of the Congress's artifice for votebanks and minority-appeasement policies. Hindu fundies are still running amok and getting wilder and stronger - if the NRIs here in America from Hindu American Foundation to H1B visa holders are taken into consideration.
Hmmm. If the trends are any indication, the woolly headed RSS-BJP types who favor such an arrangement are losing influence in India. Therefore, methinks we'll see Sindhudesh, free Balochistan and Pashtunistan before we see any reuniting of the subcontinent. But fear not, the new territory of UK West Pakistan will be open to any East Pakistani dissatisfied with the arrangement.
"Hmmm. If the trends are any indication, the woolly headed RSS-BJP types who favor such an arrangement are losing influence in India. Therefore, methinks we'll see Sindhudesh, free Balochistan and Pashtunistan before we see any reuniting of the subcontinent. But fear not, the new territory of UK West Pakistan will be open to any East Pakistani dissatisfied with the arrangement. "
Me think the same - Bodoland,Kashmir, Tamil Nadu ( free from the Indo-Aryan), Khalistan,Dimasaland,Gondwana,Nagaland,Manipur,Tripura,Zomi,Vidarbha and an entire free Northeast (closer to their brothers in Southeast Asia )should follow suit the newly created Sindhudesh, Balochistan and Pasthunistan and Khorasan ( don't forget Afghanistan). These newly created Northeast and Khalistan and others will not give a rat's ass to Kashmir and vice versa and therefeore all the people in South Asia can live happily ever after.
Not an issue. As long as they all pay tribute to Delhi ;-)
@ Sameer (# 153): Who are you (and I for that matter) to deny people the right to form their own country or nation for any reason they please whether you feel it is "selfish" or not? The history of Europe is full of nations that broke apart from former parent nations. This is why we no longer have such an entity as the Holy Roman Empire or Austria-Hungry. I think it is a common tendency of groups to want to govern themselves according to their own culture.
The only way to keep nations from breaking apart is by providing the minority groups with equal rights and incentives to stay in the union. Otherwise, the Kashmiris, the Baloch, the Pushtuns, have every right to push for independence from India or Pakistan. Who wants to stay in a union where they feel that they are second class and disenfranchised? Of course, I understand this is purely a philosophical arguement and is not how modern geopolitics works.
Also, I know you don't want to get into Kashmir, but the legal status of that territory is in dispute and is one of the issues that India and Pakistan have to sort out. I am not stupid or a rabid Pak. nationalist, therefore I don't make claims like "All of Kashmir belongs to Pakistan". But the counter- claim by rabid Indian nationalists (BJP types) is just as stupid. Let's be sensible and diplomatic about all this.
Don't know what you mean my organized religion, but C Rajagopalachari is a devout Hindu and translated Ramayana in Tamil and wrote many religious discourses. He advocated dealing with Muslim league and Jinnah because he is from a state (Madras) that had fewer Muslims and hence less animosity between Hindus and Muslims. His main fight in Madras state was against the Non-brahmins group called the Justice party which later morphed into DK, DMK and ADMK now. But not many in the Congress took his ideas seriously and he was even forced to resign.
Do you think it is only the BJP types that are claiming Kashmir?. BJP came to prominence only in the late 80s. I don't think any party in India can surrender the claims on Kashmir.
As far as I understand, it's only the BJP types who are claiming all of Kashmir including the portions currently held by Pakistan. I'm sure most reasonable Indians and Pakistanis realize that most likely scenario is the LOC becoming the permanent border or some kind of arrangement in which Kashmir gains some autonomy without formally changing the international borders. Not that this is necessarily the ideal situation, and people who believe firmly in the third option of Kashmiri independence from both India and Pak have the right to continue fighting their fight as long as they use non-violent tactics.
But No way is Pak going to surrender its portion of Kashmir to India nor is India going to give the valley to Pak. Some intermediate modality will have to be worked out. That's what international diplomacy is about.
@Ikram - yes, clearly., However, the question is why. Pakistan, from the beginning, has been a military-bureaucratic state. Even its original constitution was delayed for 8 years because the makeup of the consitutent assembly was not to the liking of those in power and they were likely to pass something else. Pakistan has also been a state in search of a national ideology - it wasn't even clear from the Lahore resolution whether it would be one state or more than one state. Pakisnan also, as pointed out, inhereited some of the pluralistic but religious-political and liberal democratic sentiments that inform India's constitution. It also had no industry to speak of at birth (India inherited 90% of the industry of British India) and was from the beginnign heavily dependent on the British and the Americas - who were fighting for rivalry in the region (see jalal). And there was the geographical mess of trying to keep one state together separated by india. So a lot of what has happened in practical politics was the playing out of these types of conflicts (among others), and in the real .
If you look at the state and society in Pakistan - you notice some clear trends. The military has thoroughly dominated politically with the exception, possibly of the Zulfiqar Bhutto period and maybe right now. Now the military seeks legitimacy, and it can't do so on democratic grounds, and it can't really do so exclusively through force because that's a pretty short term and unstable solution and it doesn't have the money to buy everyone off. the Zulfiqar Bhutto period showed what happens to political leaders that attempt to initated a popular rule - business, agricultural interests, and others severely pushback to the poitn where the 'popular' leader starts repressing the populace. So how many options do you have in terms of unifying ideologies - Islam and 'Pakistan'. But Pakistan is difficult because of the fragmentation of the state, the many ethnic claims, etc. But perhaps it would have been a viable option if more effort had been made in choosing it.
But after the late 70s, you enter an era where religious rule is being enouraged around the world, partly led by the United states - because it serves exactly this fucntion of masking waht the real power is as well as combating the Soviet Union's alleged atheism. So it is not fundamentalists that introduce Islamist definitions of Paksitan into its constitution, but the bastard genera, and for his own interests, in an attempt to placate the people and especially those likely to get riled up. So Islam becomes more entrenched int he state ideology, though again, all three strands I identified above are still present, and more pertinently, there is a difference between the extent to which Islamists are a driving force and Islamists are a group that the Pakistani elite (much like the U.S. elite or the Egyptian elite or anyone else) are trying to placate .
Meanwhile, the military continues to expand its role in the economy and in society, in part funded by the United States because of the Afghanistan war. And of course the military hass ties to the landholding families etc. And this continues in the 1990s, under nominally 'civilian rule' until a civilian government actually tries to exercise some autonomy and is thereupon thrown out by the military. At which time, the military receives enormous amounts of money for yet another Afghanistan War. And it still faces a crisis of legitimacy.
And then you have the latest series of civil society uprisings, the continuing ethnic tensions, increasing pressure on the military and civilian elites to become involvedin what is now an 'Afpak' war. But we will see how it goes. I don't know Pakistan's history and society well enough to make predictions.
So anyway, that's one possible way of interpreting the story of Pakistan and why Islam got involved. It's not totally coherent and I'm sure there are other ways of looking at it (e.g. if you looka t roving bandits vs. stationary bandits to compare how nehru handled linguistic reorganisation to how Pakistan handled the East Pakistan thing) and there are probably mistakes in it, but that's an example of the kind of analysis, I think, that needs to be invoked to begin to understand what the situation is and why, whether you area Lefitst, a Hindutva advocate, or a secular liberal. And it has to be met with critiques also which will help move it forward. Just one person's opinion, but am semi-informed one.
For people interested in looking at issues like this, I recommend: Ayesha Jalal (historian) and Hamza Alavi (political economist/historian).
I don't think there was even an argument about the role of Islam in Pakistan to begin with. Except a few inconsistent noises made by Jinnah supremacy of Islam in Pakistan is a given.
If at all there was an argument it was along the lines of Islam = democracy, islam = secularism and islam = religious freedom and the argument tha won was islam = islam.
There is, I think, a consensus around this in the social sciences, though it is changing. For example, the sangh have intiiated textbook wars in Karnataka and BJP has won its first southern state there. In any case, your point is more evidence why it is less than useful to stick to the 'Islamist vs. Secular' lens of understanding of differences between India and Pakistan on communalism than with a different framework.
I disagree with you that cherrpicking of indicators is more of a problem here than, say, in anything that speaks about 'India' as if it were a uniform whole (what does Tripura have in common with Goa or Ahemedabad with Darjeeling? surely some things, but surely not a whole lot of other things). Bad social science is bad social science and work totally disfigured by politics is just that regardless of what topic you pick.
there is, of course, a more important issue, of whetehr you can adequately undersatnd these issues through 'indicators' alone rather than a combination of statistical methods, ethnographies, historical accounts, and theoretical analyses. But I'll leave that until after the site administrators close the thread.
You are mistaken. The Constitution of India the Constitution of J&K, and a unanimous resolution in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha all give effect to the claim. Reasonable Indians are the ones who are willing to the let the LoC remain as it is for another few decades and integrate J&K more closely with the rest of India rolling back some of the more obnoxious features of the state's autonomous status, such as those that prevent non-J&Kers (actually any non-Muslim) from buying property, owning a business, or working for a private employer in the state. J&K enjoys more autonomy than any other state in India or Pakistan and is almost entirely supported by the Union Budget. That's one thing Sarah Palin and Mehbooba Mufti have in common, sanctimony, ignoring the fact that but for the Union their respective states would starve. The Indians who demand more "autonomy" for J&K are generally from the radical fringe, definitely not the reasonable sort.
jyotsana, reasonableness is a matter of definition. As much as Indian nationalists claim all of Kashmir is part of India, that territory has been in dispute for more than 60 years. There is no way in hell India is ever going to get all of the territory back. Neither is Pakistan ever going to get all of Kashmir. We have to learn to work within the realm of possibility. A similar case I can think of is Palestine. The Arabs are never going to get all of the former British Mandate of Palestine, the Jews are never going to get all of "the land of Israel". In disputes like this, both sides have to learn to compromise on their positions. If India isn't willing to do that, then the status quo will never change.
Just a final thought on Kashmir: It's my understanding that Indian Held Kashmir is not just another state of India, it has a special status because of its disputed nature. Is this correct?
Similarly Azad Kashmir is not technically part of Pakistan, which is why it has its own President and Prime Minister. Again, the reason for this is the disputed nature of the territory. If Pakistan did not recognize that there was a territorial dispute, why would it not have integrated this territory and made it another province of the country?
One way for the dispute to be solved (possibly the simplest) is for the LOC to be made the international border, IJK would then become another state in the Indian Union and AJK would become a province of Pakistan.
Kabir,
Converting the LOC to the IB is pretty much the unstated Indian position anyway. India has made no serious attempt to recover any of the territory across the LOC and would be happy to formalize the status quo.
However this would not be acceptable to Pakistan, as it would leave the valley under Indian control. Although ultimately the formalization of the LOC is the only realistic solution.
Jammu & Kashmir is enjoys a special status within the Indian Union based on Article 370 of the Indian Constitution - a set of temporary provisions. Similar provisions in the Constitution exist for someother regions and states of India.
What may ultimately happen is anyone's guess, but the accepted political consensus in India is in favour of the restoration of pre-1948 borders of Jammu & Kashmir and its complete integration with the Indian Union. This is not an extreme view within the political establishment and every political party save fringe outfits like the PDP hold this point of view. This is unlikely to ever change regardless of the party/alliance in power at the Center. The Congress if anything can be more hawkish than the BJP. Take Manmohan Singh's speech at the launch of the INS Arihant and rwrite it as coming from LK Advani/Mayavati/Mulayam Singh Yadav/Lallu Prasad Yadav/Deve Gowda/Vajpayee/Karunanidhi. It would sound the same.
I don't think accepting the LOC as the IB is the 'official' policy, maps in India still show the whole state as part of the union. However the govt pretty much treats the LOC as the de facto border, and has not pursued any territorial claims in Pakistani Kashmir or the Northern Areas.
Kabir:
The LoC has been the de facto border for a long time now. Now its just that small matter of Pakistan stopping the terrorists from crossing over and killing, closing the training camps, stopping their funding, arresting some ppl maybe .. oh and changing the textbooks preaching hatred of India and Infidels wud also be appreciated.
"Kabir,
Converting the LOC to the IB is pretty much the unstated Indian position anyway. India has made no serious attempt to recover any of the territory across the LOC and would be happy to formalize the status quo.
However this would not be acceptable to Pakistan, as it would leave the valley under Indian control. Although ultimately the formalization of the LOC is the only realistic solution. "
Is it acceptable for Kashmirians then?
@jyotsana
"You are mistaken. The Constitution of India the Constitution of J&K, and a unanimous resolution in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha all give effect to the claim. Reasonable Indians are the ones who are willing to the let the LoC remain as it is for another few decades and integrate J&K more closely with the rest of India rolling back some of the more obnoxious features of the state's autonomous status, such as those that prevent non-J&Kers (actually any non-Muslim) from buying property, owning a business, or working for a private employer in the state. J&K enjoys more autonomy than any other state in India or Pakistan and is almost entirely supported by the Union Budget. That's one thing Sarah Palin and Mehbooba Mufti have in common, sanctimony, ignoring the fact that but for the Union their respective states would starve. The Indians who demand more "autonomy" for J&K are generally from the radical fringe, definitely not the reasonable sort."
Reasonable Indians should understand that India is an occupying force in Kashmir ( sugar coating aside).Kashmirians are not asking for any petty "Union" Budget - $ 5 billion dollar should be spent on the Northeast - another region wanting freedom from the "Union". The 250,000 Kashmirians who marched against India were not radical fringe - though it is more convenient for India and Indians to treat Kashmir nationalism as radical fringe,terrorists and etc.
"Jammu & Kashmir is enjoys a special status within the Indian Union based on Article 370 of the Indian Constitution - a set of temporary provisions. Similar provisions in the Constitution exist for someother regions and states of India.
What may ultimately happen is anyone's guess, but the accepted political consensus in India is in favour of the restoration of pre-1948 borders of Jammu & Kashmir and its complete integration with the Indian Union. This is not an extreme view within the political establishment and every political party save fringe outfits like the PDP hold this point of view. This is unlikely to ever change regardless of the party/alliance in power at the Center. The Congress if anything can be more hawkish than the BJP. Take Manmohan Singh's speech at the launch of the INS Arihant and rwrite it as coming from LK Advani/Mayavati/Mulayam Singh Yadav/Lallu Prasad Yadav/Deve Gowda/Vajpayee/Karunanidhi. It would sound the same."
Article 370 is an example of India's own view that Kashmir and Kashmirians will never be Indians or Indianize without the lenghty process of forced and slow assimilation. Hence, India waits for a few generations to be born in Kashmir before she claims Kashmir as her own. BJP has tried to abolish Article 370 without any success.
INS Arihant is a Soviet-made - and we need to wait until 2011 whether the machine can move without killing any navy-officers - other than that - Manmohan Singh needs to tone down his jingoism.
@ swati
May be we should extend your suggestions to India - stop the brutal occupation of Kashmir,the arrest,the murder,the rape and leave your pathetic jingoism aside before speaking to Pakistan and Pakistanis.
And,by the way, Pakistanis are brought up to hate snakes and chocolates too.
Do you find anything untrue in the following statement(s)?.
Ardy - Do you know anything about Kashmir's demography? Are you aware that all Kashmiri Muslims do not wish to secede from India, just a certain percentage of Sunni Muslims.
Btw, It is Kashmiri, not Kashmirians.
Ardy the Pakistani, "Kashmir nationalism"? Oh! you mean AFTER the Hindu genocide in the valley!
Remember Swati, it's nationalism and tolerance for me, but not for thee.
@Ardy the Pakisthani,
I am bad with "Amreekan" slang and racial jibes so you will have to explain what u meant by chocolates. Also for a snake hater.. u sure slithered away from the issue quickly :)
@Manpreet
Did you hold a plebiscite in Kashmir to jump into that conclusion? And by the way, Kashmirian is the adjective used to describe the people of Kashmir.
@Swati the Indian,
Does anybody who reject Indian occupation in Kashmir has to be a Pakistani or is that how India and Indians justify any critism towards its occupation of Kashmir - as merely a product of pro-Pakistanism and therefore case closed?
If one is so myopic like you,the so-called Hindu genocide in Kashmir (is PN Oak your historian?just wondering ) should be used as the basis to bring up the Muslim genocide under the Dogra.The famine of 1870-71 caused by the Dogra should qualify as a genocide against Kashmirian Muslims.
@Slow assimilation is the key my friend. Them Kashmirians should be glad we are not Han China.
You are a mimicry of Han Chinese - except the people of Tibet and Xinjiang - just like the people of Kashmir and Northeast have been waging slow resistence.
@INS Arihant
Let's hope it will not turn up to be another BrahMos.(notice the capital M in the middle of the word...was placed there to scare the Pakistanis)Haha.
Is this a rejoinder to, or a validation of Ardy's counter-comment making the exact same point about Sameer's comment?
Ardy - No, I did not, did you, since you are making all these ridiculous claims. At least I have been to Kashmir, where my close relatives used to live. Yup, ethnic Kashmiri Sikh relatives, whose ancestry goes back farther than the advent of Islam in the valley. As I mentioned, only Sunnis have a problem with the current scenario, and they too break all over the place - from pro-Pakistan to Independence to pro-India.
Kashmiri Hindus, who were ethnically cleansed from their homeland in 1989 and Kashmiri Sikhs who live under constant threat and fear of expulsion and Kashmiri Shias and Kashmiri Buddhists have absolutely no problems with India.
Btw - Are you aware that in order to hold a plebiscite, all armies have to withdraw to pre 1947 borders of Kashmir. This border was first violated by the Pakistanis, in case you forgot. Aren't you wondering why the Kashmiri Sunnis who so desperately want independence never demand, even verbally, that Pakistan vacate the part of Kashmir they control, where the living standards of Kashmiris is lower than that of Indian Kashmiris. Not to mention Chinese held Kashmir.
p.s. i just asked a Kashmiri friend of mine about "kashmirian", and he in turn asked a dozen or so of his family members, and guess what : nobody has heard of Kashmirian.
What's most striking to me about all these narratives and counter narratives of history is that all of us (Pakistanis, Indians, ABDs, etc) seem not to care at all what the Kashmiris think or desire. It's all about "India will never accept this, all of Kashmir is ours" or "Pakistan demands all of Kashmir". The Kashmiris have been waging an indepence struggle for decades. Do they not have the same rights to an independent nation that India or Pakistan had?
I am interested in this issue because like Manpreet I am Kashmiri by ancestry. One of my great-grandmothers grew up in Shopian, which has incidently been in the news a lot lately. My great-great-grandfather lived and died in Srinagar. It seems entirely ridiculous that my family cannot visit our own ancestral areas because they are now part of this disputed territory which neither India or Pakistan care a bit about despite all their claims to the contrary. It is the people of Kashmir more than the Indians or Pakistanis who matter in this case.
You understand wrong. The RSS types for one have no issues with this solution as long as the Pandits are treated fairly. You can read Bal Raj Madhok's prescription in the penultimate chapter here.
http://ikashmir.net/storm/index.html
The simple answer is NO. The more complex answer is "No, not if this is going to be a pawn for non-Indian powers a la Pakistan." Between the two lies the gulf of negotiating the separation of powers between the centre and the states. Kashmir's special status under Article 370 is the result of the negotiation of the separation of powers between the Kashmiri (Abdullah) government and Delhi.
A similar answer applies to any other "independence" struggle in the Indian subcontinent.
Ashish, what gives you (or India) the right to decide which nationalisms are legitimate and which are not? If a majority of Kashmiris don't want to be a part of India (not to say they want to be part of Pakistan), what right does India have to keep them forcibly in the union? The same applies to Pakistan or to any other country. We (Pakistani Punjabis) oppressed the East Pakistanis for decades until they finally had enough and formed their own country. If the central government cannot provide ethnic minorities with equal rights and incentives to stay in the union, it has no right to force them to stay in it. This is a moral, principled position regardless of my personal feelings on which country Kashmir should have belonged to originally.
Imagine if the British in the 1940s had said what you are saying now "India cannot be independent if this is going to be pawn for non-British powers". It would have sounded ridiculous then, and it sounds equally ridiculous now. The Kashmiris have every right to seek independence, provided they do this within democratic and non-violent means. Just because you don't think their demand is legitimiate doesn't make it so.
There are what 1 or so billion people in present day India. Plenty of minorities no matter how you try to slice it - religion, language, caste, skin color. Just considering religion, two so-called national parties govern states where religious minorities are the majority (Congress/Muslim in Kashmir, BJP/Christian in Nagaland and Meghalaya), while a third national party governs states with sizable minority population (CPI(M) in Kerala and West Bengal).
The common thread is that *every* Indian subordinates his or her ethno-nationalism to the common cause. Kashmir has what 3-5 million citizens - what makes it so extraordinarily different?
"The common thread is that *every* Indian subordinates his or her ethno-nationalism to the common cause. Kashmir has what 3-5 million citizens - what makes it so extraordinarily different?"
Ashish, what makes Kashmir different is that unlike the other Indian states, it is disputed territory, not unequivically part of India. India itself took the dispute to the UN in 1948, this making it an international dispute. What I am arguing is that the aspirations of the Kashmiris, not of Indians or Pakistanis, should be made the primary focus. If a referendum is held and a majority of Kashmiris want to be part of India, I am fine with that. If a majority wants to be part of Pakistan, I'm fine with that too. If they want independence, I am equally happy with that.
You are right that every Indian subordinates his or her ethno-nationalism to a common cause. This is true of other countries as well. The problem arises though with an ethnic group that perhaps doesn't feel "Indian". Just because you consider the Kashmiris "Indian" doesn't mean they consider themselves that. All I'm saying is that they should not be forced into being "Indian" because it makes you comfortable. Social science teaches us that identities are constructed and it is often the individual's subjective identity that is important. If the Indian state over 60+ years has failed to assimilate the Kashmiris and make them Indian, perhaps there is good reason for that.
As an example of an individual's subjective identity, I point you to the case of the great poet Agha Shahid Ali, who throughout his entire life wanted to be referred to as a Kashmiri-American and never as an Indian-American. Who are you to tell him that he is wrong and he is Indian? He never felt Indian.
Kabir - I am personally from Punjabi stock, but thanks to an aunt who married a Kashmiri Sikh gent, I have Kashmiri relatives.
I thought us liberal, secular types were supposed to be all about the liberties and freedoms of the individual?
You can call yourself anything. That doesn't matter. In fact a citizen of India who chooses to remain in India has every right to demand and criticise to heart's content and attempt to move the country to commit itself to a variety of causes, non-violently. The very basis of modern India is its goal to successfully complete the transition from being a millennia old nation to the status of a nation state. I am not the first one to say that. Dr.B.R. Ambedkar did. There are some ground rules that have guided India in the years since Independence in its process of assimilation. It will tolerate and negotiate with any number of movements that seek to carve out regional enclaves, but it will be ruthless towards any movement that aims to break the Union. Lincolnesque. Secondly the Indian Union will deal with the regional movements that are not primarily motivated by religious sentiments. Culture in terms of language or lifestyle or even the lay of the land must be the primary motivation. So although the movement for Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Nagaland werre driven substantially by foreign Baptist Church provacateurs, the Indian establishment decided to ignore them when it found that there is a substantial cultural element to the aspirations of these Indians. In the case of Punjab and Haryana althugh it may seem they were riven on religious lines, it is not so. The two states continue to share a capital, and the universal nature of Sikhism and the many Bhakti movements in those regions that transcend religious divisions (including some fascinating communities such as the dhoti clad Meos - Muslims of Haryana) ensured that religious sentiments have never been in play. I belong to a state - Tamil Nadu - that hosted vigourous separatist movements during the 1950s until the late great CN Annadurai rejected the idea of secession following the Chinese Aggression in 1962, when he found that the people of Tamil Nadu had no desire to secede and would rather stand with their fellow Indians. In the case of the Kashmir Valley secessionist terrorists, their motivation is entirely religious. Further it is a small group of Sunni Muslims in the Valley who have rejected their Kashmiri heritage - a multireligious one - in favor of a bizarre extremist caricature best typified by the likes of thugs like Asiya Andrabi and her Dukhtaran e Millat, that are driving the secessionist movement. Their goal is to continue the goal of Partition to carve out a fundamentalist Islamic state in the Indian subcontinent. The Valley terrorists are at variance with every other community in state of Jammu & Kashmir - the Pandits whom they butchered and drove out, the Sikhs whom they have butchered and are still driving out, the Buddhists who are thankfully out of reach and the Shias who bear the brunt of the terrorists' wrath both in Kargil and Gilgit across the LOC. Naturally this is a poisonous movement and cannot be allowed to exist, leave alone succeed. The Valley terrorists also seek to, along the way, wipe out every trace of non-Islamic heritage. That is why the thugs organized a march against the plans to construct a building for the Amarnath Mandir, as they see it as an affront to the fundamentalist character of the Valley. The mainstream Indian opinion maintains that while Partition was a mistake there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost and forever impossible to undo the Partition. But what India will always try to do is to ensure that another Partition never happens and find new ways for its billions to live together in harmony, even if this means reminding its neighbour of the folly of trying to maintain a religiously founded nation-state. As Jairam Ramesh said a few years ago, there may be a clash of civilizations around the world, but there should be never be one within India. Some Pakistanis (most definitely not the likes of Dr. Parvez Hoodbhoy) may think that if Pakistan cannot be held together as a religious nation-state or become a secular nation-state, India too should not be allowed to remain in peace. That is a mistaken view and not conducive to the development of a healthy nation.
Thanks Abhishek!
"if a majority of Kashmiris don't want to be a part of India (not to say they want to be part of Pakistan), what right does India have to keep them forcibly in the union? The same applies to Pakistan or to any other country."
If tomorrow a majority of Indians decide to kick out all Muslims from India, what would you call them? The majority of Kashmiris you talk about lost the right to secede when they ethnically cleansed Kashmir's Hindu population in 1989-90, unless they are willing to give slices of Kashmir to the Hindus, Shias and Sikhs. Go ask them.
I don't like taking topics off thread, but since thats already the case, just wanted to respond to a somewhat related point from the bsf thread, since it was closed before I could post.
amardeep
while i do appreciate your responsiveness to the request, you are right, your posts didn't address the point i made.
1) i discussed the ongoing bangladeshi govt instituted genocide, the point i made above discussed how post 1971 the population was 15%, and now in the 2000s it is 8%, not the 1971 pakistani army instituted genocide--whose victims included liberal intellectuals among the muslim bangladeshi population (and rural women of all religious backgrounds). There was more of a racist anti Bengali element on the part of the Pakistani army. what is ongoing in bangladesh today is indigenous and institutionalized and focused on one religious community only. these are two completely different events
2) also, the discussion of pakistani courts did not address the point about the catastrophic disappearance of the remaining hindu population post partition (estimated to be 15 percent) and the treatment of women. two different points as well
anyhow, i know you guys have a balancing act that you must take among all south asian nationalities to keep the confidence of your readership, but i do hope you can indeed address these issues in a post simply to raise awareness regarding a critical matter. i do believe it is possible for all of us here to address this in a mature fashion without devolving into hateful recriminations.
also, thank you for the posts on taslima nasrin--truly a sad story. since we're on the topic of freedom of speech, you should probably also do a post on the attempted web censorship by the present govt in india: http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/Internet_censorship_coming_to_India_-nid-57075.html. it was briefly in the mainstream media. i hope that topic can also be fleshed out in a nonpartisan fashion because freedom of speech is the foundation for all other rights...
Sorry for the interruption. Now back to the regularly scheduled program...
Jyotsana (201), I've heard this before:"Kashmiri nationalists are only fringe terrorists who want to carve out a fundamentalist Islamic state". What makes you so sure that they want a fundamentalist state? Maybe, they just want a secular Muslim-majority nation independent of both India and Pakistan, both countries which frankly speaking have treated Kashmiris very badly. The Kashmir valley is under military occupation, and Pakistan has not always taken a principled stand and has hijacked the Kashmiri cause for its own purposes in the past. Please point me to party manifestos stating that the goal for an independent Kashmir is a Shariah-state or whatever before making these accusations which are a typical Indian justfication for oppressing and occupying a people. This rationalization is exactly that of rightist Israelis who refuse to allow for a Palestinian state because it would be a "Hamastan". What gives you the right to deny a nation its own state? Again, what if the British had come up with some spurious excuse to deny all of us Indians the right to our own state in 1947? Would we have stood for it? NO! Neither will (or should) the Kashmiris. The time will come when their demands for freedom and Azadi will be heard.
Both India and Pakistan owe it to the people of Kashmir to listen to their concerns and treat them as more important than the petty expansionist needs of Delhi and Islamabad. If Kashmir gaining independence means other disenfranchised parts of the Indian union demand independence, then so be it. That is not really the Kashmiris problem.
Kabir - re: 204 - The proof is in the pudding. That they cleansed Kashmir os her entire Hindu population. Have you ever met with a Kashmiri Hindu who had to flee in 1989 or any non Sunni Kashmiri?
Kabir,
You've normally seemed like a reasonable commenter--the reason that nobody takes "Kashmiri nationalism" seriously is the way it has manifested itself in nasty ethnic-cleansing type attacks on non-fundies.
I don't see how just because more than 50% of people want something that must automatically mean everyone has to sit there and allow their rights to be trampled.
So if fringe Kashmiris are going to claim the right to completely disregard the stability, security, and prosperity of the rest of the subcontinent in the name of Kashmir, why in the hell should the rest of the subcontinent give half a whit about the ambitions of Kashmiris? I'm not seeing any reciprocity here.Yoga Fire, no one has to sit there and allow their rights to be trampled (except the Muslim Kashmiris who want independence?). What's wrong with arguing for holding a referendum and then honoring the results of that referendum? If smaller subdistricts of Kashmir want to remain with India that is fine, if the valley wants to be independent it should be allowed to do so. If the majority in the Valley wants to join Pakistan, that is also their right.
I understand that the realities of international diplomacy and geopolitics are different from the ideal world of philosophy, but I don't see the moral justification for denying a people their right to self-determination just because it makes you personally uncomfortable. On on individual level, this is equivalent to a husband who is in a position of power denying his wife the right to divorce. Would that be acceptable to you?
Rob, I am not justifying ethnic clensing, and I'm sorry if this is not reasonable enough for you, but sometimes good-intentioned movements turn violent and do reprehensible things when their legitimate aspirations are repeatedly denied and stifiled. But the fact that violence has been used doesn't make the aspiritions of the movement illegitimate. Violence was used by Black Panther type groups during the Civil Rights movement, that didn't mean that African-Americans should be denied civil rights. The BJP (your own people) have used violence before that doesn't make them illegitimate as a political party. Same applies to the Kashmiris.
Manpreet, I've read blogs by Kashmiris, both Muslim and otherwise, who are passionate about their homeland and aspire to independence from India. There are people who are extremely frustated by the way India (and Pakistan) has treated them and aspire to indendepence. Why do you insist on characterizing this as a fringe group? If this was a fringe feeling why would US spokespeople make statements arguing that any settlement to the Kashmir dispute must respect the rights and aspirations of the Kashmiri people as well as of the other parties to the dispute.
Kabir@204:
Pakistan and Bangladesh are examples of desi muslim states which separated and claimed independence for the same reasons as Kashmiris, and yet did not become "secular republics" as you expect Kashmir to become. The reforms among desi muslims are almost nil compared to the reforms among the hindus that have been going on for the past few hundred years. As long as mullahs and insidious "scholars" like Zakir Naik have considerable clout among the common muslim population, your hope is a pipe dream.
See what Mr. Naik has to say about allowing other religions in Islamic countries: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHpd2T7mi5c
jujung, I want Kashmir to become a secular republic (heck, I want Pakistan to become a secular republic), but what matters is not what I want but what the majority wants in whichever country we are talking about. All I want is for democracy to operate and (in Kashmir's case) for military occupation to end.
I'm not interested in listening to or reading about mullahs, have no interest in them and don't want to get involved in discussions about religion. I approach all issues from a liberal,democratic, secular point of view. Thanks.
The moral justification is that we live in the real world and make do with all the constraints that implies. Kashmir is not going to be a secular republic it is going to be a pawn of hostile powers and will fall under the thrall of mullahs. This might be unpleasant to consider, but that's what's going to happen. Ignoring that is like trying to pretend slavery had nothing to do with the American Civil War.
Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner does not make a just system of governance. This is why all functional representative governments style themselves "republics" rather than majoritarian democracies. This is a load of propagandistic hooey spread by Kashmiri insurgents. The Indian military is there because if they weren't Kashmir would be taken over by armed brigands and become a crossing-ground for Pakistan-based terrorists. That benefits nobody but aforementioned armed brigands and Pakistan-based terrorists.It's not like Kashmiris just woke up one day and decided they don't "feel Indian." There are forces at work stoking that sentiment and, beyond that, those who disagree have been systematically purged from the country.
There is no basis for comparing the secessionist terrorism of the Kashmir Valley with the Civil Rights movement. The Valley Kashmiri Sunnis are not oppressed minority neither does Jim Crow holdsway. If anything the Valley Sunnis get to impose their version of Jim Crow on the rest of India. While a resident of J&K can work buy property and engage in trade anywhere outside the state, no Indian enjoys the same right within J&K.
jyotsana, that is because Kashmir is not part of India, it is disputed territory. Why can't you people understand that? This is why Azad Kashmir has its own government, president and PM. Pakistan has not annexed it and made it a province. This may only be a technicality, but it shows that Pakistan considers Kashmir a disputed territory. India considers Kashmir a disputed territory hence Article 370 and taking of the dispute to the UN.
Why doesn't the Indian government go to the UN and ask it to close its file on Kashmir? Why does the US make statements saying that the aspirations of the Kashmiri people should be respected? Like it or not, there is a dispute which should solved in way that is in the interests of all concerned parties, but especially the people of Kashmir--all of them: Muslim, Hindu, atheist, whatever.
I believe two very popular slogans during the 1989- 1990 were "Kashmir mein agar rehna hai, to Allah ho Akbar kehna hai" and "Yahan kya chalega?- Nizam-e-Mustafa". Oh!, there was also another one about wanting Pakistan, along with Kashmiri Hindu women, but not their men (It was in Kashmiri).
And this was the daughter of the east preaching secularism . Watch her go, starting 0:23, her Oxonian debating pedigree on full display.
For those who like theatrics, there is of course the darling of the media, Islamic Rage boy, the new face of the secular Kashmiri liberation movement. As for the cold facts, there were of course the selective killings of Hindus that drove them away from their homes in sheer terror.
I really don't know if they can actually do any more to advertise their secular credentials.
As for comparing Kashmiri secessionist movement with the Indian independence movement, it is beyond ridiculous. You may not believe it now, but the land we call Kashmir has always been where it is now- in India. We did not have to cross oceans to invade and subjugate it. And there is also the minor detail of thousands of years of pre Islamic Indic religious and cultural heritage (the syncretic Sufi Islam was pretty cool too- but that was before the discovery of secularism)
Kabir,
Of course, you should realize that the Kashmir situation is like a wet-dream for a Hindutva like me. It's a bleeding, oozing sore that reminds "us" that communalism is real, and certain forms of coexistence are a myth, a pipe-dream, a veritable "I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn." It's a living example of the lies to be found in Indian textbooks pushing the Congress agenda. If the one state in India w/ a Muslim majority "just can't get along," well, what does that say for the other states, w/ Hindu majorities? >:-/
Does wonders for fundraising 'mongst us NRI's as well. . . . So, thanx for the continued activism for a "free Kashmir, and to end Indian miitary occupation." Keep up the good work!
this thread has gone on bizarre tangents, but this is one of the weirdest reasons for opposing kashmiri independence that i've seen. the nation-state construction of india is tenuous. arbitrary lines were drawn by the brits as they galloped back home in hurry. indian "patriots" will oppose secession movements just like nationalists of any ilk. nothing wrong about that pov but it is just that. a point of view. but to try and justify it based on freedom and non-oppression by the majority as some others have done is ridiculous, as is hoping that we should leave in a world from two millenia ago.
Lupus, Kashmir may be geographically part of the Indian subcontinent. But it was not part of British India and it is disputed that it is part of the modern post-1947 state of India. Hari Singh wanted to be independent, it was not inevitable that Kashmir become part of India.
You and those who agree with your political views call it a "secessionist movement". On the other hand, I and people who share my political views call it an "independence movement". I suppose we have to agree to disagree. I simply take the principled position that ethnic groups cannot be forced to be part of a country they don't want to belong to. Either the central government considers their demands and gives them incentives to stay in the union or it lets them go. Forcing them and keeping them under military occupation is not an effective long-term option.
And as I keep reiterating, I don't support the slogans you have mentioned or the ethnic clensing of Kashmiri Hindus. All movements sometimes do things that are reprehensible out of frustration or despair or whatever. Perhaps part of the reason why the slogan about wanting Pakistan was raised was because Kashmiris were so frustrated with India and they knew saying they wanted Pakistan would really upset Delhi.
So does the "disputed nature" of Kashmir make it ok for Pak to send terorists over the LoC? Ardy is still "slithering away" from that question.
does the disputed nature of balochistan make it ok for india to fund terrorist operations there?
Apparently some of you aren't quite acquainted with how international relations works. Allow me to furnish you with this handy diagram.
All the high-minded principles in the world don't mean squat when the enemy is bent upon your destruction.
P.S. The rebels in Balochistan don't blow up hotels in Lahore. You can thank the ISI funded fellows in the NWFP for that. They stick to guarding their own country and they manage to do so without targeting minorities within for extermination.
Jammu , which you keep conveniently ignoring used to be 80% hindu, Leh and Ladakh is Buddhist.
The J&K govt, derided across the border as puppets, imposed state taxes only in Jammu and Ladakh and Leh and no taxes in the Kashmir Valley (90% Muslim). There are other examples of blatant discrimination.
If this abomination occurs when Jammu & Kashmir is a part of India, just imagine what would happen in an independent country with very heavy Islamic influences of the worst kind.
Pakistanis have little clue of India's size or diversity. India is not a bigger version of Pakistan. The fact that the majority is overwhemingly Hindu, hides the fact that differences in Hinduism is much larger than those between most religions.
India is a country of a billion people. Jammu & Kashmir has a population of 3-4 million. A rounding error, that can be corrected easily. The oft touted Sunni / Muslim majority can be changed in a matter of months, with no long term ill effects to India.
The fact that it has not happened is a refection of the Indian public's commitment to secularism and democracy, to the sloth, greed, and callousness of its leaders, and to general inertia and ignorance.
Why does the Valley have to be tied to Jammu? If Jammu wants to be part of India, I have no problem with that. If the Valley wants to be independent or part of Pakistan, what is the moral justification for refusing to consider these options (I know about the compulsions of international diplomacy, geopolitics, and nationalism).
"the disputed nature of Balochistan". Balochistan is not disputed in the same way that Kashmir is, it is not part of an international dispute. It is constitutionally a part of Pakistan in the same way that Assam is part of India. Yes, there is a Baloch independence/liberation movement. This exists because the Pakistani government has historically worked in the interests of Punjabis and exploited the other provinces, particularly Balochistan. On this issue, I would argue the same thing I have been arguing re: Kashmir. Either the central govt in Pakistan needs to consider the legitimate aspiritions of the Baloch (that they be given the profits from the mineral wealth in their province for example) or we need to let them go. I am consistant. I don't think that constuitent parts of India have the right to leave the union, but the current borders of Pakistan are sacrosant.
Yoga Fire, that's not what I meant and you know it (or maybe your analytically challenged). Here in simple terms is the difference between Kashmir and Balochistan. The parties to the dispute in Kashmir are 1)India, 2) Pakistan, 3) the Kashmiris. The parties to the dispute in Balochistan are 1)Pakistan, 2) the Baloch. See the difference? the former is a international dispute, the latter is not.
In other words, the only distinction is that in one case someone on the other side of a border decided to raise a stink and in the other case they didn't. I fail to see how this make a lick of difference from a "liberal" perspective that is supposedly more concerned with the welfare of the people in the country rather than the national interests of the nation-states that control them.
India has no locus standi on Baloch independence. It is a internal dispute between the government of Pakistan and one of its constituent parts: the province of Balochistan. In contrast, Kashmir is not simply a state of India. The whole of the former princely state of J and K is disputed territory between two sovereign countries: Pakistan and India. The more accurate comparison would be between Balochistan and Assam.
You are being willfully obtuse because I refuse to believe you're that stupid or ignorant.
Thus, the only difference is that India opted not to be a dick by stoking tensions with its neighbor over a matter that was settled. Just as it was settled that Kashmir would be part of India when the Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir acceded Kashmir to India. Since it was agreed upon by both India and Pakistan before the conflict that they would apportion the disputed Princely States according to the wishes of their rulers, this distinction you are attempting to draw seems irrelevant and does not work towards any meaningful end.
The fact the it would be against the secular ideals of the India state. Does Pakistan feel that the 3 million Kashmiris should be part of Pakistan? Sure -- let them go over -- there was plenty of land taken over from displaced, Hindus/ Sikhs from Partition.
Does India have the moral duty to protect the rights of its people, even minorities. Yes. And India strives to do so.
On the other hand India has no moral authority to give up lands belonging to the people of whole of India, just on the whim and fancy of a couple of people here and there, just because it may suit them at any given time.
Ok, how about we ignore for a moment what happened in 1947 (leaving aside the issue of how a Hindu maharaja can decide anything for a Muslim-majority population or whether his "accession" to India was really voluntary). Let's talk about 2009. Kashmir is still disputed between two countries. Balochistan is an internal issue of Pakistan. The stakeholders in the Kashmir dispute are India, Pakistan, and the Kashmiris. The stakeholders in Balochistan are the Baloch and the Punjabi-dominated central government. There is a difference, no?
The correct comparison is between Balochistan and Assam, not Balochistan and Kashmir. India has no right to demand Baloch independence. Pakistan has no right to demand Assamese independence. Kashmir is the only international dispute here. All others are internal problems. This doesn't make them less valid as disputes, but there is a qualitative difference between international and intra-national disputes.
OK--while I confess being subject to the "it takes one to know one" concern, let's let Kabir have the last word on this Kashmir issue, until there's actually a post on the topic.
India is a self-defined nation and nationa-state. Its modern borders may have been sketched in part by some foreign power but that is no longer relevant to what India has defined for itself. The current borders of India are as defined by the Constitution of India and according to that there is absolutely no dispute that J&K is a part of India. Anyone's saying so doesn't make it a dispute. There's also another factor in the maintenance of a nation-state's boundaries, its ability to keep them inviolable and prevent any foreign power from interfering with its internal disputes. In the 1860s when the Civil War raged in the United States no foreign power dared interfere in favour of the Confederacy or harass a weakened Union because the two armies fighting the Civil War were the world's largest and most powerful. So too as we say jiski lathi uski bains. That is what prevented the possible emergence of a mega US spanning the entire N.American land mass or an expanded British, French or Spanish clony in North America.
Where does one draw a line in your system of considering independence for whoever that demands it?
Should we be sympathetic if a tribe decides to call for independence for it's village(s)....What about a large family deciding on independence for it's farmhouse? Is there any fixed number or size below which you decide to withdraw sympathy? Should we legally permit independent mobile republics of one (hehe... cracks me up everytime) ?
(Besides, the valley is too small, too landlocked and too dependent on it's neighbours to ever be economically viable)
"The fact that it has not happened is a refection of the Indian public's commitment to secularism and democracy, to the sloth, greed, and callousness of its leaders, and to general inertia and ignorance."
Try it. The reaction by the people of Kashmir will be priceless.
"The fact the it would be against the secular ideals of the India state. Does Pakistan feel that the 3 million Kashmiris should be part of Pakistan? Sure -- let them go over -- there was plenty of land taken over from displaced, Hindus/ Sikhs from Partition"
secular ideas? Plenty of land? All the kingdoms/states that became Pakistan had on overwhelming Muslim population. May you extrapolate the sympathy towards million of Muslims who were killed by Hindus and Sikhs or for you the Muslims ( given your comments towards Muslims before),or those pesky Muslims were creatures deserved to be sent away from their homeland in the name of secularism.
Agreed. This definitely explains the Pakistan reaction to India. Thanks!
"The current borders of India are as defined by the Constitution of India and according to that there is absolutely no dispute that J&K is a part of India. Anyone's saying so doesn't make it a dispute. There's also another factor in the maintenance of a nation-state's boundaries,"
Yes, it is disputed even by Indians - Indians brought the J&K issue to the UN and rejected 11 different proposals by the UN. The nation-state called India was only briefly united by the foreign invader - the Mughals and the Buddhist Asokas. It came into existence by various means in 1947 - annexation,threat,mayhem and military operations. So this nation-state didn't have a natural boundary, it concocted one in the name of its delusional nationalism - at the cost of other people's freedom and liberty.The existence of 17 and more separatist movements should be an indication of this.
are you disputing indian involvement in balochi insurgency? why is that not a threat to pak sovereignty like kashmir is to india?
"Who got sent away? There are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan"
your stat is a bit rusty.They are underrepresented in every field and overrepresented in the prisons.They are the modern day sudhras and dalits of the nation-state called India. And, now the Hindu zealots( the RSS and VHP) are warning about the rise of Muslim population in India.
This is a triumph of India's liberal culture, our people's respect for secularism, and the corruption of the politicians (= Congress, of course).
Not just the Hindu zealots, Ardy, everyone, even the Europeans and the Chinese, and umm, the Latins.
See, e.g., The Demographic Siege. When you've pissed off the Belgians. . . .
Try it?! It has already been tried, in a large part of J&K, and it succeeded. Or did you really think that "Azad" Kashmir had so many Punjabis and Pathan in 1947?
You're right. Zealots everywhere are a band of brothers. Unfortunately, "Pakistan" is not as catch as Eurabia.
So far we have heard Indians playing the Muslim fundies card as they usually play with. Here one voice from Kashmir, playing with the Hindu state theory - http://bluekashmir.blogspot.com/:
"It is important here to reflect briefly upon the original issue of the Amarnath Yatra to illustrate the point about Indian nationalism as a religious faith in the service of the Hindu empire. Let me not speak of how India’s political elite goaded, duped, threatened, and forced the peoples of different regions of British India and the princely states to merge with India; it was the same process through which Kashmir was annexed. Let me not speak, too, of how most people of the subcontinent that were called “We, the People of India” had virtually no say in the formation of what was called the “Union”. Let me just say that Nehru inherited an empire from the British, and he wanted to consolidate his spoils by making it look like a state. Not for nothing did he stand atop the Red Fort (a symbol of the Mughal empire), on August 16, 1947, with a flag that no longer had Gandhi’s Charkha, but Ashoka’s Chakra (a symbol of the Mauryan empire)—an act to declare continuity with past empires of the subcontinent. Nehru was touted as a secular democrat, but one can find plenty of evidence to show how he gave in to the inexorable march of the Hindu nationalists, many of whom decked his own cabinet. The rebuilding of the Somnath temple, to assuage the feelings of the Hindu nation “for until then they would not think that the real freedom had come” (the words of Vallabhbhai Patel, clearly showing from whom was freedom desired), was just a starter.
Hindu nationalism, which ran amok over, what Ashis Nandy has called “the little cultures of Hinduism”, actually came in handy in the drive to turn the empire into a state. Hindu pilgrimages were boosted to this end; new places to worship were found and given nationalistic appeal. Issues like Ram’s birthplace, and in recent times ‘Hanuman’s bridge to Lanka’ (the Sethusamudaram) were made national issues to rally a fictitious nation around fictitious symbols. In short, a sacred geography for Hindus was outlined where it did not exist. India became synonymous with Bharat Mata, the territorial Hindu deity to be worshipped through deshbhakhti. Kashmir, which is called “the secular crown of India” without any hint of shame or irony, was actually imagined as “the crown of Bharat Mata”, and only so because the crown of the bejeweled image of Bharat Mata, often juxtaposed against the map of India, was where Kashmir was. Kashmir in the same vein also became the atoot ang (an unbreakable body-part) of the anthropomorphic goddess Mother India.
The Amarnath issue stems from here. By bringing in millions of Hindus from across India, facilitating their travel, increasing the number of pilgrimage months, and trying to create permanent bases for them, the state seeks to firmly place Kashmir within the Hindu imagination, as another point on the sacred map of Bharat Mata. By doing so, Kashmir ceases to be the land of Kashmiris, but becomes an abode of Baba Bole Nath. The consolidation of this vision, along with parallel efforts to invent ancient Kashmiri links to India (read the debates on the Institute of Kashmir Studies), in effect seeks to integrate Kashmir with India in its Hindu sense. What else can explain the comical demand of Jammu Hindus that their lost honour could be regained only if Kashmiri land is given to them (perhaps the entire Kashmir should be given to them in lieu of their lost Dogra honour!), and what else can explain the whole of India, the state and the nation, rallying behind Jammu Hindus?"
@ Rahul
hahaha.You are damn good with sarcasm.
Ardy
Though the term 'mini-Pakistan'is quite succinct.I don't really understand why you had to post someone else's blog entry in full.
As you have consistently demonstrated, you are perfectly capable of writing blinkered, irrational, contrived, pseudo historical stuff of a very high grade and excellent entertainment value yourself.
"I don't really understand why you had to post someone else's blog entry in full.
As you have consistently demonstrated, you are perfectly capable of writing blinkered, irrational, contrived, pseudo historical stuff of a very high grade and excellent entertainment value yourself."
I posted the most important part of his entry - given the lack of voices when it comes to Kashmir. On contrary to your "blinkered, irrational, contrived, pseudo historical stuff posted by you?:
"Should we be sympathetic if a tribe decides to call for independence for it's village(s)....What about a large family deciding on independence for it's farmhouse? Is there any fixed number or size below which you decide to withdraw sympathy? Should we legally permit independent mobile republics of one (hehe... cracks me up everytime) ?"
You are quite right, Ardy, india is a fascist hinudtva state (remember hitler was a vegetarian - essentially a hindu as a recent christian convert explained to me). Kashmir has no connection with hindu or indian culture. There never has been a hindu presence in kashmir, maybe a little buddhism but that was destroyed by the evil brahmins a long time ago. Kashmiri politicians who want "azadi" are secular - by this is meant that they havent yet 100% decided on sharia as the law for the future. Some are holding out for pure wahhabism. They have exterminated their minorities - but thats OK too - after all the Maharaja was hindu and that means all things hindu are evil.
Yes and the lawyers in the long march who were chanting "Azadi ka matlab kya ?? .. Ya ilahi ill illah" are also secular.
RC (# 251), just because the lawyers movement used Islamic terminology in its slogans doesn't make them Islamists. It's natural to co-opt the dominant culture to your ends, some might say it's effective PR.
Jyotsana, nice to see you advocating might makes right. Such a good demonstration of India's secular and democratic principles. The only thing I can say is that you are the equivalent of Pakistani Mullahs, and thank god there are sensible people like Dr. Manmohan Singh and Gilani Sahib in power. If people like you were running the show, god knows what would have happened.
Also, I think we confuse things when we frame the Kashmir dispute as an India-Pakistan issue. It's really about what India (and Pakistan) owe to the Kashmiris. If India cannot grant them independence, then at least they should have a certain level of autonomy with Kashmiris being able to cross the LOC to trade and meet relatives on the other side. They should be able to manage their own affairs to as great an extent as possible. This was Musharraf's back-channel negotiations with Dr. Singh, no? A step in the right direction, in my opinion.
This is a great argument for terrorists to acquire bigger and better weapons.
@ jyotsana,
"As someone else has said this earlier, the Sunnis of the Kashmir Valley are a rounding error. It wouldn't take much time to Han'ise the Valley. In any case the secessionist thugs of the Valley are a cowardly lot. Before Buddhist Ashoka there was a Hindu Chandragupta who threw out Alexander's satraps. And even at its height the Mughal "empire" existed only in Delhi. There are large parts of India where the Mughal Empire's minions had no say. There's a lot more history outside Rahmat Ali's rantings. You could start with Dr.Ambedkar's Pakistan or the Partition of India. I have posted the link to this paper several times on SM whenever the Wahabi wannabes and Prema types run amok. "
The secessionist thugs of the valley as you put it needed too many Indian soldiers to subdue them. But then again, given how ethnic and religious ghettoes mushroom throughout India- Emraan Hashmi might be able to finally get a flat in Kashmir.Heck,you can send a million or so Iyers from Tamil Nadu to Kashmir - all Kashmiris need to do is send the smells of beef and meat and off will the Iyers run back to Bharat.I usually refused to engage in debates with rabid folks like you and the likes of DizzyDesi and AlBeruni and Rob - but given your sense of simplified answer to deluge Kashmir with Indians - I could not resist to send a whimsical repartee.I think Rahul is doing a much better job.
I am quoting relevant portions from an article by Mr. Joginder Singh (published in the Pioneer but not archived). Provides some facts and figures for your consideration...
As best as I know the problem of Kashmir’s secession or not rose with India’s independence. The Americans helped UK during the WW2 and insisted on something in return for their Marshall and other aid: a strong presence in the subcontinent.
Mrs. Loy Anderson, wife of the US envoy, was specifically sent to Sheikh Abdullah and whoever else was in charge by the US govt. She said, never mind what the maharaja signed. Separate, become independent with our support. This would have given the US a foothold in the sub-continent, a potential colony and certainly a place to watch the USSR, China, etc. This is really the root of the K problem and why the US continues to essentially support Pak’s claim while proclaiming support for democracy/peace. They know they can usually control Pak’s elite with money and modern trinkets like Ivy L scholarships, a few positions in the Council For Foreign Relations, the Pak army with free weapons profiting powerful arms companies with the US taxpayer’s money. They want bases in Kashmir.
The business of Islam assuming such importance seems to come far later, like in many other places. Most Kashmiri Muslims are aware of their Hindu backgrounds with names like Butt (Bhat). The word, Kashmir, comes from Kashyap, the well known Hindu saint. Both the Kashmiri Ms and Hs were proud of their respect for each other. Time and again, Kashmiri Ms, not other Ms, have tried to protect the Pandits from the militants who came from outside. Kashmir’s Ms have even repaired some Hindu temples, tried to look after houses evacuated by Pandit neighbors.
While many armies do atrocious things, remember Kashmiri villagers have been told say the Indian army did this or see what happens to your village. Muslim militants have been found in uniforms which resemble the Indian army’s. Remember the Kandahar hijacker called himself Shankar. This is routinely done by militants who are not Kashmiri, to confuse people/ media. .
Today there are people like Farook Kathwari who having become rich in America now support independent Kashmir to support their own glory. The man who would be king. They study states like Lichtenstein to see how small, land locked countries manage. (Lichtenstein may be managing on laundering drug/similar money.)
So the issue of Kashmir may not really be about religion or independence but countries like the US and supporters who have their own pitiful agenda.
Re plebiscite, India has always agreed provided all who vote can prove they were originally Kashmiri before ‘47 and include those who were forced to leave.
Happy to be corrected.
Dear weird
No one has found Indian terrorists in Balochistan or in the Marriot Hotel explosion but plenty of Pak terrorists/ freedom fighters have been found in Indian Kashmir and in Mumbai for that matter. Whatever else Islam propagates, it does value truth, not lying to get someone else’s property, and takes theft seriously. Easy to take what you want and say the religion says so.
Folks, FWIW, Hitler was never a veggie. He stopped eating sausages on doctor’s orders and that was considered veggie: no red meat but eat fish and fowl.
Dear Ardy
Re Emran Hashmi, several Muslims, not just well known ones like Aamir Khan and Shahrukh, have declared him a liar. Presumably none of the millions of Muslims can buy a flat or even rent one. Must see what has happened to my neighbors on the fifth floor, I usually meet them at Id.
And yes, Ardy, we do have heeng!
hey ardy and weird, invite you both to eat dal ( Kashmiri rajma?)with me in Mumbai.
Lupus, the issue of the slogans the lawyers were chanting is a red herring. The lawyers movement was essentially non-religious in nature focused on restoring the chief justice and ensuring the integrity of the Constitution. Of course, like all political movements, religious parties and center-right parties like the PML-N joined it for their own purposes. But It was not a religious movement. Unfortunatly, Islam has seeped into every aspect of Pakistani discourse. When even the Cricket team thanks Allah for their victory before focusing on things like tactics and strategy, is it any wonder that an essentially secular movement seeks to play on the popularity of religion? Anyway, the lawyers movement has nothing to do with Kashmir.
2) I was commenting on jyotsana's hypocracy. At the same time, that he states that India is secular and democratic, he states "jiski lathi uski bhains (might makes right)". He very proudly says,"The Sunni Kashmiris are a rounding error, we could easily annihiliate them". With discourse like that, is it any wonder thereis an independence movement? Who wants to be part of a union at gunpoint? I was not commenting on the national characteristics of India as a whole.
3) The stats you have referred to about the disproportionate amount of help given to J and K are very interesting, but I don't think they change my argument. Could it not be that the center is placating the Kashmiris in order to keep the independence movement (or insurgency if you prefer) from growing stronger? Also, no matter how much economic help a state or ethnic group is given, I don't think that can replace the aspirition of autonomy. Isn't this kind of like the Chinese argument that they are economically developing Tibet thus the Tibetans shouldn't want independence from Beijing?
Like it or not, many Kashmiris have not and still do not feel Indian (or Pakistani), they feel Kashmiri. J and K was not part of British India, and it's not indisputably part of India. Democratic principles demand that the referendum be held and people be allowed to choose their own destinies.
Finally, regarding the argument that the ruler of the princely state was allowed at independence to accede to either India or Pakistan and that Hari Singh acceded to India: the ruler of Junnagarh acceded to Pakistan, but India held a plebescite there and did not honor the ruler's wishes. Thus, since Kashmir is exactly the analogous case (Hindu ruler, Muslim majority population, while J'garh was Muslim ruler, Hindu majority population), it makes sense that a plebesite must be held in J and K. This is the UN's position as well as Pakistan's position. If India is so sure that the Kashmiris want to remain Indian, why is the government scared to hold a referendum?
Once a referendum is held, I for one will stop arguing the case for Kashmiri independence. A referendum should be held and the results of it should be honored. If a majority of Kashmiris choose to be part of India, then so be it. If they want something else that should be honored as well.
hey Kabir
yes, that is my name and i am not kashmiri. common indian name once.
you have been independent, even tempered and mostly fair. I don't think u understood Jyotsana. She was saying, had india chosen to, it cld have eliminated 3 or 4 million and/or simply allowed large scale Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh migrants. Who cld have done anything against that, esp say 40 yrs ago? In fact it respected the dispute and protected Kashmir against that. I dont know any other country that has done that.
Pl note a referendum must include ALL Kashmiris, including those forced out provides they can prove they/families were Kashmiri in '47. No one from outside Kashmir can vote.
India has asked for that, P has routinely refused.
Knowing business cannot flourish with the current scene, India gives Kashmir money. No, it doesn't need to bribe, it could simply starve it, tax it, make it miserable for all or kill all the people it has been accused of killing. If u r going to find fault for both giving or not giving aid, you win!
I wish we could have peace bet ind and Pak, Kashmir is relatively unimp. i wish pak wld concentrate on education, business and travel and leave war alone. India has asked for that, P has routinely refused. Go forth and be prosperous!
"I wish we could have peace bet ind and Pak, Kashmir is relatively unimp. i wish pak wld concentrate on education, business and travel and leave war alone. India has asked for that, P has routinely refused. Go forth and be prosperous!"
Dear Kashmira, I agree with you except when you say "Kashmir is relatively unimportant". This depends on who you are talking about. Yes, to India and Pakistan, Kashmir is relatively unimportant but to Kashmiris, Kashmir is all-important. Thus, shouldn't they have the most say in what happens to their land?
I agree with you that a referendum should include all Kashmiris including those in exile. That's only fair.
Don't bother engaging Ardy or Kabir, they are going to look awfully silly when they as well as the "secular" Kashmiri Muslims get run out of their own countries by their countrymen/co-ethnics. They will still do post-mortems on the failure of these societies that heap blame on the West & India (of course we would turn into bearded gremlins if you gave us money to fight the soviets ! We weren't doomed from the start of our creation as a Muslim state, Islam is exceptional among religions ! We aren't some nasty Hindus whose Bharat would by nature turn into a Mad Max dystopia), but they are going to be doing if from Georgetown and Cambridge, MA. where eventually their hosts will tire of them. When I read Kabir/Ardy/Amnonsense it's a lot like to listening to some crank who believes that Betamax would have triumphed over VHS if it weren't for the Rothschilds & Illuminati.
@louiecypher
"When I read Kabir/Ardy/Amnonsense it's a lot like to listening to some crank who believes that Betamax would have triumphed over VHS if it weren't for the Rothschilds & Illuminati."
When I read people like you, I am reminded about imbecile buffons who would put words into other people's mouth and those who waffled between canker and their languid ken; and those who postulated their zany suppositions using their mealymouthed lunge.
What about bigger and better was so hard to understand?
See you at the soiree in Georgetown Ardy ole chap, Mohsin Hamid is going to be doing jello shots off of Arundhati's tumtum! Feel free to bring the family, just make sure none of them are sporting beards. It is deeply upsetting to young Kabir, he's not used to the strange ways of our alpine rustics who have not had the benefit of learning Jinnah's single malt version of Muslim-ness. Just remember to bring back my Betamax copy of Flashdance, I need me some Jennifer Beals
Of course Kashmir is imp to the Kashmiris but would they not prefer peace between ind and pak and then get on with the LOC or siding with whichever side or neither? Peace first, plebiscite with ALL Kashmiris second. Peace is possible if Pak wants it. What happens if K Shias/Sikhs/Buddhists/Hindus/atheists and even liberal Sunnis decide they really do not want a separate state, possibly a future haven for the Taliban or equivalent? Is Pak going to sit quietly while they vote? India is not that vested in Kashmir and is also used to states and religious leaders voting and disagreeing with the center. Do u honestly believe an independent Kashmir would be left alone by the US or China for that matter? Or by rich overseas Kashmiris? By the way, I hope u find documents re Loy Anderson's wife and the US role in instigating Kash current problems. Cherche the Great Satan! Kabir, do let me know re Mrs Loy A, if u reach the relevant documentation. also do comment on overseas kashmiris perpetrating ongoing wars.
I am amazed Ardy and Weird believe india is involved in Balochistan minus any evidence. I am horrified by the no. of educated Paks who live in Rome or NYC who believe all they have read about Hindus in their govt sanctioned texts and treat me accordingly. Surely these peoeple can go beyond religious or state propaganda, esp if they live overseas? Just about any educated indian will stop a conversation if someone says those Muslims did this. The correction expected is yes, some Muslims and some Hindus did that, not all. This correction happens very often. Most of our school texts hardly mention temple destruction or elaborate on jiziya. Over and done with is the official atttitude.
"Mohsin Hamid is going to be doing jello shots off of Arundhati's tumtum" Thanks louiecypher, that's the funniest thing I've heard all day:)
Really, d00d?
So you're saying that those that do are madrasa-esque?
"That was a hilarious Ardy. Your pet monkey can actually type random words in a nonsensical sequence. Try it yourself. I am sure you can beat him at this game."
That's the point Lopus. Nex time, when you asked your pet monket to read for you, teach it to laugh.
Lopus...nex...monket...
Your monkey is not paying attention. When was the last time you spanked some sense into it?
@ Lopus
Do monkeys need sense to debate with a Pat Condell's fan?I doubt it.
"Do u honestly believe an independent Kashmir would be left alone by the US or China for that matter? Or by rich overseas Kashmiris? By the way, I hope u find documents re Loy Anderson's wife and the US role in instigating Kash current problems. Cherche the Great Satan! Kabir, do let me know re Mrs Loy A, if u reach the relevant documentation. also do comment on overseas kashmiris perpetrating ongoing wars."
Snark,do you honestly believe an independent India would be left alone by the US or China?Or by rich feudal-lords and venal Indian politicians?
"I am amazed Ardy and Weird believe india is involved in Balochistan minus any evidence."
I have never brought up Balochistan when discussing Kashmir.Kashmir is the issue here not Balochistan - the Northeast region ( Bodoland,Nagaland) is India's own Balochistan.The Khalistan movement can also be considered as India's Balochistan (which India has brutally suppressed with its might).
"am horrified by the no. of educated Paks who live in Rome or NYC who believe all they have read about Hindus in their govt sanctioned texts and treat me accordingly"
Snark, not sure exactly who you are referring to, but on the off-chance that you are lumping me in with is category, let me make clear that I do not belong in it. First of all, I was educated mostly in the US so have not learned anything about Hindus from Pakistani govt-sanctioned texts. Some of my best friends are Indian (In fact often I get along better with Indians than with Pakistanis)--of course, liberal and secular Indians, not BJP types. I consider myself South Asian rather than Pakistani and take great interest in all forms of our broader South Asian culture, including Hindustani music, the lyrics of which often refer to Radha and Krishna, along with other Hindu figures.
I am sorry you have had bad experiences with "educated" Pakistanis. I have had similar bad experiences with "educated" Indians who as soon as they here that I am from Lahore treat me totally differently than just seconds before. What can be said, except that we post-Partition generations have forgotten the richness of our composite culture and treat each other instead with great suspicion. Hopefully, in time people-to-people contacts will change that.
Ardy, I am certainly no Pat Condell fan. I find him an arrogant Eurosupremacist, far from the liberal that trumpets himself to be, but I can't deny that that some of the issues that he addresses are quite real, having seen them first hand. Just because you dislike someone doesn't mean they are not capable of speaking the truth.