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

[Developereo]

This is possible only when all the other aspects of identity are actualised. We go through our quest for identity in a hierarchical way. In our case, we have sought our religious identity first. In India, we then actualised our linguistic identity (the linguistic reorganization), our ethnic identity (the pledge to the Tamils not to impose Hindi on them), our caste identity (through V. P. Singh's vi piously efficient invocation of the Mandal Commission Report), as well as allowing the Sikhs to realize their religious identity to its fullest extent possible within the constitution. Unfortunately we still have two or three iterations to go through before we can look at individual liberties, leave alone the human rights of women, children and the differently-abled.

It's simpler than that. Muslims formed a political block because their Muslimness was the cause of discrimination.

If there is institutionalized discrimination against short people or fat people, we can be sure there would be reactionary political activism centered around that characteristic.

 

[KS]

It's simpler than that. Muslims formed a political block because their Muslimness was the cause of discrimination.

That there was or would be a 'discrimination' was the moot point.

Anyway no use in talking about those things. I feel Partition was as good for India as Pakistanis feel its good for them.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

It's simpler than that. Muslims formed a political block because their Muslimness was the cause of discrimination.

If there is institutionalized discrimination against short people or fat people, we can be sure there would be reactionary political activism centered around that characteristic.

No ,Muslims created a new nation because there Muslimness was above indianess, they wanted separate laws and exclusiveness, And a few Muslim elites wanted power and and wealth so they mislead others also.

 

[KS]

No ,Muslims created a new nation because there Muslimness was above indianess, they wanted separate laws and exclusiveness, And a few Muslim elites wanted power and and wealth so they mislead others also.

Dude let it go.

For whatever they did, they did us all a huge huge favor. United India would not have survived for one full decade. The synergy is simply not there. What happened was for the best of both.

 

[Bang Galore]

Regarding the primitive mediaeval TNT, it was first enunciated by Vinayak Savarkar as an exclusionary measure. It was thereafter taken up by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. Why blame others for what the majority community had brought out on its own? Jinnah found that a good case could be made out of this ridiculous theory, and proceeded to argue that case. It reflects credit to him

Simply a very flawed argument. Anyone could have thought up something but the political rationalising of the TNT is what we must be concerned with. You are also wrong in suggesting that Vinayak Savarkar first enunciated it. It was a common refrain of many Muslim theologians & articulated specifically by the pre-eminent Sunni theologian Shah Waliullah way back in the 18th century. Not a new theory when Savarkar came up with a "Hindu" response.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Fair enough. But the point made was the Muslims at that time might have felt insecurity or threatened and demanded what they demanded..but it still doesn't make sense from a Hindu point of view. Why should Hindus let go of the advantage they had by virtue of their numbers ?

Dont we prepare dustbowls for the Australians when they visit india and Kiwis give us green tops in Auckland ?

Personally I think it has more to do with the loss of the Mughal empire and the thought of 'living under the people we ruled' that baulked most of them.

What advantage? Let me invert the question: why impose a disadvantage, any kind of disadvantage?

They were wrong, but at the time, their nascent professional classes felt that they would be swept away.

This sense of victimhood persists even today, within India, for tangible reasons, outside India, for intangible reasons. The challenge for India is precisely to remove this sense of victimhood and get all those who feel that way, vis-a-vis the upper caste caste Hindu, to feel included.

Not easy. But inevitable, mandatory.

It's simpler than that. Muslims formed a political block because their Muslimness was the cause of discrimination.

If there is institutionalized discrimination against short people or fat people, we can be sure there would be reactionary political activism centered around that characteristic.

It was never a real thing. A Muslim was never discriminated against. Their leadership felt, at a surface level, that there might've; at a deeper level, perhaps, they feared the loss of their dominant position in the sub-continent. What the fan-boys gleefully and wrongly describe as 1000 years of Muslim rule. Setting out with that need to establish ab initio superiority, how could any system have suited the situation?

As we see today, none did.

 

[ajtr]

Same thought would have gone through Jinnah's mind about Ajmal Kasab and gang wrt the thoughts were going in his mind for direct action day.

 

[S_O_C_O_M]

indians are going to beat this "26/11 aka mumbi attack" to death. Where only 160 some were killed. Is it so much that indians care about the dead or they actually are trying to continuously and repeatedly fuel hatred for Pakistan? Thousands in india die from hunger daily yet indians don't care as they are either spending billions on their defense or give aid to other countries without caring about their own.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Simply a very flawed argument. Anyone could have thought up something but the political rationalising of the TNT is what we must be concerned with. You are also wrong in suggesting that Vinayak Savarkar first enunciated it. It was a common refrain of many Muslim theologians & articulated specifically by the pre-eminent Sunni theologian Shah Waliullah way back in the 18th century. Not a new theory when Savarkar came up with a "Hindu" response.

I beg to disagree.

The theory was used politically- naturally. One can hardly expect a bare-faced demand for the restoration of the Sultanate or of the Mughal Empire to have succeeded. What else was left? At root, it was not the anxiety of the working class Muslims, but of the professional and salaried classes among them, anxiety regarding the scope for growth embedded in an enormously larger different community, that drove them. They could not, would not accept that they would be a minority. Their remembered past demanded at the least parity, and the demand was packaged in different ways.

 

[Contrarian]

This is a massive double speak. On one hand you try to portray to the world that we are secular and look we don't have these things in our text books, which is incorrect, and on the other hand your security forces kill and carry out massive human right abuses against your minorities.
Who are you guys trying to fool.

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

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

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

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

Or

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

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

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

Again and again you are telling me, please read NCERT and other official text books, these are not spreading hatred. Yet your own reports clearly mention that they do. Still you blatantly disagree. What a sham.

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

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

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

And then there are some apologist so-called Pakistanis join you in trashing their own because of their so-called high moral values. They can't face the world because they don't know their own history and they don't know how to defend it - how would they know how to defend it, when they have no idea what it is.

I am a Pakistani and you can lump it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I for one have always used the word Indian and never Hindu unless needed. Even Muslims in India, I have referred to as Indian Muslims. And I have seen here that most Pakistanis also use the word Indian and not Hindu unless a particular community needs to be referred as such.

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

I however have seen most of the Indians here talk incessantly about Islamic terrorism and Muslim terrorism and try and make it synonymous with Pakistan.

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

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

Much of what you have said does make ample sense and I appreciate it. A lot of work has to go in before realising the intent. And I sincerely hope that it can come true.

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

 

[IND151]

Now Indian SC is trolling Pakistan

NO

SC doesn't make comments with intention of trolling

SC, perhaps, was pointing at the irony that Taj- favorite hotel of Jinnah, father of Pakistan- has been attacked and damaged by a Pakistani

 

[Joe Shearer]

indians are going to beat this "26/11 aka mumbi attack" to death. Where only 160 some were killed. Is it so much that indians care about the dead or they actually are trying to continuously and repeatedly fuel hatred for Pakistan? Thousands in india die from hunger daily yet indians don't care as they are either spending billions on their defense or give aid to other countries without caring about their own.

I am really surprised at the extraordinary insensitivity that you display. This incident had tremendous shock value, as we watched the entire episode on live broadcasts. Thousands of us, who were frankly indifferent to Pakistan, became aware that there was an entire country out to kill us where and how it could. It was the desperate search for elements within Pakistan who might resist this terrorist streak that brought many of us here.

 

[S_O_C_O_M]

I am really surprised at the extraordinary insensitivity that you display. This incident had tremendous shock value, as we watched the entire episode on live broadcasts. Thousands of us, who were frankly indifferent to Pakistan, became aware that there was an entire country out to kill us where and how it could. It was the desperate search for elements within Pakistan who might resist this terrorist streak that brought many of us here.

psssshhhhhh.

 

[IND151]

Shame on your country for supporting armed insurgencies inside your neighbour's borders and sowing the seeds of hatred and discord, what would have Gandhi thought? Tisk, tisk.

sir if you are referring to 1971, then kindly also remember Pak help to insurgencies in NE from 50s to late 60s

 

[KS]

What advantage? Let me invert the question: why impose a disadvantage, any kind of disadvantage?

The disadvantage was not forcibly engineered or imposes. It just existed.

They were wrong, but at the time, their nascent professional classes felt that they would be swept away.

This sense of victimhood persists even today, within India, for tangible reasons, outside India, for intangible reasons. The challenge for India is precisely to remove this sense of victimhood and get all those who feel that way, vis-a-vis the upper caste caste Hindu, to feel included.

Not easy. But inevitable, mandatory.

We can debate on how justified is this 'victimhood', whose primary fault was that and how it should be rectified.

I would also like to point out that except the a tiny minority, yet extremely vocal section of the Brahmins, majority of the Upper caste Hindus dont feel excluded.