M.F. Hussain accepts Qatar citizenship

[ganeshran]

Why were you even anticipating violent protests in this situation when you never tire of telling me how most of them are innocent and normal and that I'am paranoid beyond repair and that it is based on my faulty perception of things and it is something that Pakis do ?

Well, there was a clear precedent of communal violence in the Ayodhya verdict issue. And it was not only me but companies and businesses in the area which shut down anticipating violence by both Hindus and Muslims in case the verdict went against one party. Your paranoia on the other hand is different - it is driven by a deeper hatred which requires a heightened sense of danger in order to rationalise itself. This sense of danger and the illusion of being under seige is aptly supplied by Islam's violent past in the middle ages where many brutalities were done in the name of religion.

Do you know the main reason why Jinnah became bellicose in his stance ?

Pre 1930 Jinnah was a leader whom I would have gladly entrusted the running of a united India- he was secular, spoke for the united country, promoted Hindu- Muslim unity. But things started changing after the Khilafat where the Mahatma started gaining prominence in national politics. After his return from London, Jinnah slowly started shifting his stance from autonomy to the two-nation theory. It was in these years that he digressed into a rabble rouser and demagogue who exploited the religion card because he knew that would be an effective tool to polarize the Muslim populace which was already confused about its future. The actual point of difference which may have led to Jinnah's change in stance was the 14 point plan was which not accepted by Nehru

please put down the approximate dates and name the incidents you consider as exceptions.

The major communal incidents were Babri 1992, Mumbai riots of 1993 and Gujrat 2001 and Kashmir 1989. there may have been other incidents of smaller magnitude but that doesnt change the fact that Hindus and Muslims have mostly lived together in peace for most of India's independent history. By the way, why didnt Bajrang Dal and VHP target CN Annadurai for his criticism of the Ramayan, something which was far more insulting to our gods than any paintings of Hussain? Was Hussain an easier target compared to a political leader with a strong following of his own?

[ganeshran]

This is not entirely accurate ... you cant consider a community that has demanded Shariah laws as being tolerant. The less said the better of the overt incidents of aggression and bellicose behaviours.

So one group demanding the Sharia translates to the whole community being intolerant? There has been a group of Muslims which has demanded Sharia in most western countries too. That doesnt mean it is going to get granted. VHP wanted India to become a Hindu Rashtra too, that doesnt mean the demand is going to get accepted. Our constitution was clear about the fact that India was to be a secular country where no religion is given partial consideration.

[ganeshran]

Well since you are the opposite of me and are also not paranoid feel free to enlighten me why you were even anticipating violent protests in this situation where OBL was shot when you never tire of telling me how most of them are innocent and normal. I don't care what you do when Hindus riot . That situation has absolutely no connection to this one. I'am not interested in that . I only need to know WHY you anticipated trouble when OBL was shot ?

It has all the required connection to it. There were two main points in your argument - avoidance of the area and anticipation of riots. You used my avoidance of the area to highlight intolerance of Islam. I say this is simply not true - it is common sense to avoid an area where riots are taking place and there is a chance of violence. It equally applies to Hindu riots unless we want to go out and actually take part in the violence. Regarding the anticipation of the protests, it was because similar problems had happened after Saddam's death where some nutcases had staged protests and indulged in violence. Few days after thta violence there was another rally by RSS where there was violence and a guy was killed too. It was by that yardstick where I said there is chance of protests and better to avoid the area. If you think that Muslims by large supported Saddam or OBL, then its simply not true.

Wrong. It was the 1946 elections that he won unanimously on a single point agenda of "Creating a Seperate Homeland for Muslims" is what emboldened him to get belicose and adopt aggressive tactics forcing everybody to take him seriously. He won every single seat that he contested in and these were not only in Pakistan but in current day India.

Totally incorrect. Jinnah's stance had started shifting way back in 1930s. In 1937 after the poll debacle, he told the Bombay Governer Lord Brabourne that he planned to preach radical Muslim communalism to gain support. The 1940 session of the Muslim League put forward the idea of Pakistan and Jinnah exploited Islam from this point till he got Pakistan. The communal passions were already running high by the time 1946 Elections came and that is the reason for the results in those. It was the effect of Jinnah's agressive stance not its cause.

you may not know this but India officially allows Muslims to follow Shariah .... yep 4 wives and all and there was hardly any opposition from the remaining 99% that you so vehemently claim to have been against this. And as far as Western countries is concerned even there a huge chunk support this.

Completely selective interpretation - Shariah is demonised not because of its 4 wives or inheritance provisions, but because of bringing Muslims religious duties like prayer, fasting or charity in the purview of the law and hence making it mandatory. It also says that Islamic judges should be incharge of criminal rulings (Hudood rulings), Islamic banking to be made mandatory, apostasy to be made punishable etc. These things would be absurd in a secular country like India The Muslim personal law covers no such thing.It mainly applies to marriage and inheritance matters. Criminal law is still equal for every Indian citizen, there are no such Hudood enforcements either.

You have left out a big list of violent activities just too numerous to list. chief among them are the numerous terror attacks and the Flag Hoisting Incident in Hubballi. These are just waaay too serious offenses to brush them aside and pretend that there has/had been peace and tranquility for large parts. I mean everything from Ethinic cleansing to loss of territory to breach of constitution has happened in this time frame. How the hell can you lie thru your teeth and say that we have been living peacefully wonly with them ? So back to the million dollar question : What else needs to happen before you wake up and say "oh no this is bad" ? But these tidbits from your post highlight some of the reasons why I say it is futile to argue with people here who position themselves as "secular". There is simply a huge disconnect between you guys and reality.

That is why I said mostly peaceful existence. There have been problems no doubt, but they are nowhere as huge as you portray them to be - that Muslims and Hindus have been fighting all along the history of Independent India. Most Indians living in India would agree with me unless you want to specifically magnify each incident in our 65 years and portray that as a proof of Hindu Muslim unity. My concept of reality is not prejudiced by religious hatred, unlike yours which already has a conclusion in mind and then selectively fits facts to suit that interpretation. Whenever there is violence, I have unequivocally condemned it regardless of who causes that. But when violence is caused by Hindu groups, you would find some way of rationalizing it, while when violence if caused by Muslims, it will only bolster your conclusions I still didnt get an answer to the question - Why didnt Bajrang Dal and VHP target CN Annadurai? His book Kambarasam went to the extent of questioning the relationship between Hanuman and Sita. This should have been totally unacceptable for VHP or Bajrang dal. Could it have to do with the fact that he had a strong political following and and violent intimidation would have been met with an equally violent response?

[ganeshran]

Reg Riots : The very fact that you automatically expected trouble after OBL was shot is disturbing and tells the story. It is ludicrous to suggest otherwise or connect it to something else. You are not going to wiggle away from this. OBL gets gunned people can anticipate celebrations not trouble. Unless ofcourse you are living in Peshawar.

I expected trouble because a similar thing happened after the Saddam issue. Also, You conveniently skip the fact that no such trouble ever happened. You do not need the whole community's support for indulging violence for a cause. Trouble after Saddam's death doesnt mean the whole community supports Saddam, just like the Gujarat riots didnt have the whole community's support.

could you tell me what can be more damning and serious than cessation and ethnic cleansing, open rejection of the national flag and Vandemataram and ofcourse huge loss of life due to literally countless acts of Terror ? What have I magnified here ? Infact I have overlooked sooo many incidents here ! Perhaps you need a mushroom cloud for you to budge?

You magnify any act that suits your interpretation that Hindus and Muslims cannot coexist with each other. Our stability after 65 years itself voids this premise. There are problems and no one denied it,but it doenst translate to Hindus and Muslims fighting each other violently for most of Indian history.

The results of that election were the only reason for Jinnah to up his ante and force the issue and demand his piece of land. Lookup Direct action day. If we are to believe your assertion that Muslims are all normal wonly then he should have lost that election. Because Normal people don't vote to divide their own country. The same nonsense got repeated in Kashmir - right infront of your eyes.

Absolutely not. The 1946 election was the effect and not the cause of Jinnah's rabble rousing. Communal passions were whipped up all throughout the late 30s and 40s, and Jinnah shifted his stand to do that when he found the Islam card convenient. People where polarized and they voted for their religion, not for the Muslim league or Congress.

Yes I know it is watered down but please tell me what part of it fits in a Secular Democratic Republic ? I mean which woman likes to share her man with 3 other women ? It is just sad that you want to brush this aside as a non-issue. Why does the Govt have to spend any money on Hajj tours ? It makes complete mockery of our claim to be a secular democratic republic when you endorse such medieval practices.

I dont agree with polygamy either and support a uniform civil law. But that doesnt mean Muslims in India want to impose Shariah especially since the most objectionable and intolerant provisions which are not followed in India. The Hajj subsidy is in the process of being phased out by 2017 and I agree that religious pilgrimages shouldnt be subsidized by a secular government. Currently the Kailash Mansarovar yatra is also subsidized by some states and should be phased out too.

Reg AnnaDurai : I don't know anything about the Anna Durai case. He needs to be dealt with too based on what you are saying.

But he wasnt. There wasnt a whimper of protest from Bajrang Dal or filing of court cases or violent intimidation. And this wasnt an act which required an interpretation of whether it was against Hinduism, it was a direct attack on the Ramayana and the eroticism in it - and it was far more damning than what Hussain did. I can reproduce the verses here but I dont want to hurt the sensibilities of others. The reason being that Annadurai was a strong political leader while Hussain was a helpless individual who was an easy target. Also Hussain's being a Muslim made him a convenient target of groups who painted his religion as the reason for his paintings. Any violent opposition to Annadurai would have been met with an equally violent response, but targeting Hussain had no such risks. It is blatant cowardice to select only those enemies who are incapable of retaliation

[ganeshran]

This is just insane. Can you CLEARLY tell me what can be more disastrous than Cessation ' date=' Ethnic cleansing and the various other things that I listed before ? For example you could say : if there is Mushroom Cloud I will accept that there is a problem. I REALLY REALLY want to know this.[/quote'] The problem with you is you will only see one side of the problem. If Muslims cause an issue you will magnify it and use it to justify their ideology as violent, If Hindus cause an issue, you will rationalize that as rightful retaliation to Muslim violence and again divert the topic to ideology of Islam - so you are in your comfort zone of discussing Islamic intolerance. Please mention the specific events and we can discuss them in detail. In course of the discussion if I bring in other related events, then you shouldn't accuse me of spreading the guilt.

[ganeshran]

Which of those incidents that I mentioned were initiated by Hindus ? If there are others that were not mentioned then feel free to bring them up and we will see which of those incidents ranks remotely close to Kashmir and all those other incidents I mentioned earlier. In any case how does this translate to Hindus and Muslims have lived peacefully for 65 yrs ? Dont you realize that it further weakens your claim !! Otherwise please answer my question in post#695

Please mention the specific events and not one-words like cessation and ethnic cleansing so we can discuss and get to the bottom of the issue

[ganeshran]

Kashmir is a geopolitical issue where religion has been very cleverly manipulated by Pakistan in order to promote its own claim on the territory. There was never really amity between Hindus and Muslims in Kashmir but it was atleast uneasy peace for many years. The massacre of Pundits in Kashmir happened in 1989, a whole 42 years after independence. If Hindus and Muslims were always baying for each other's blood why did this happen so long after independence?? The reason is the militancy in the state - which was caused by the Jihadis who were supported by Pakistan in Afghanistan to fight USSR. Once USSR went back from Afghanistan. these Jihadis were used by Pakistan to fight a proxy war in Kashmir. Large scale infiltration took place and militancy shot up in the 90s. The separatists very cleverly exploited religion as a rallying point against 'Hindu' India and supported the massacre. It still doesnt mean the Muslims in the rest of India were fighting against Hindus everywhere or there was continuous violence between the two communities. We have had a mostly peaceful coexistence.

[ganeshran]

I am still waiting for a response on Why Bajrang dal and VHP leaders didnt target Annadurai for his criticism of Ramanayan, or for EV Periyar who openly opposed religion and broke idols at temples or even Karunanidhi who has time and again criticised Hinduism. Were they afraid of retaliation if they try to attack these politicians who have a strong power base themselves. If not, then retaliation by them is conspicuous by its absence given their eagerness to move againt Hussain. The truth is that their stand was never to defend Hinduism, it was only to gain notoriety by staging violent protests and vandalising property to get their 15 mins of fame. Hussain was a soft target who didnt have the resources to defend himself. His being a Muslim only served the reinforce the notion that he painted the paintings to deliberately take a dig on Hinduism.

[The Outsider]

I am still waiting for a response on Why Bajrang dal and VHP leaders didnt target Annadurai for his criticism of Ramanayan, or for EV Periyar who openly opposed religion and broke idols at temples or even Karunanidhi who has time and again criticised Hinduism.

The likes of Annadurai and Karunanidhi would have stripped the Bhagwaa brigade Bajrang Dal and VHP leaders of their proud chaddhis and whooped their sorry asses. :hysterical:

[ganeshran]

Because by your logic Hindus are living peacefully in Pakistan even to this day as there are simply no earth shattering incidents between the two communities to speak of in that land. Even if there are incidents you have a very brilliant way of dealing with it : Sweep it under the carpet and pretend that everything is squeaky clean and go back to your default state of blissful ignorance that simply refuses to deal with reality. In the unlikely event that you want to entertain this ugly pest called reality heres what kashmir is in a nutshell : It is part of a ongoing project that is been on for decades if not centuries. Read up on Islamic Revivalism after Mughal era ended. You cant simply achieve that sort of a thing in a 10 year time period with a couple thousand Jihadis - Certainly not when a battalion or two of Indian Army is permanently stationed over there for decades. You need grass roots level support and a base that readily accepts Islamic Rule. There is no shortage of such populace in India or any country - poor or rich - that has a sizeable Muslim population. This is a hard reality that you must accept simply because of the overwhelming amount of evidence that is there for everybody to see around the world and in India.

Your concept of reality is really a strange one for you to be criticising others. It is arriving at a conclusion first and then working backwards and fitting in facts as per convenience to suit the conclusion and justify it. The one dimensional interpretation that we are good and they are bad is simply not correct. You mean to tell me that for 42 years all the Muslims were waiting and preparing to carry out the massacres of Hindu pandits. The answer is NO. I already accepted that there was never complete peace in the valley between Hindus and Muslims - but there was uneasy peace where both communities did not trust each other yet didnt indulge in violence and let each other live. Kashmir is a complex geopolitical issue with a religious undercurrent. Right from 1947 Pakistan has repeatedly tried to make it into a Hindu - Muslim issue to further its claim on the territory. At times this strategy has looked successful when the circumstances were such that the populace was polarized in the name of religion, at other times it fell flat on its face. The 1965 war Operation Gibraltar which hoped to stir a rebellion among local Muslims was a failure and Pakistan lost the war.

The million dollar question : Why are the supposedly normal , peaceful and secular Muslims supporting the Jihadis and allowing them to exploit especially when they are supposed to be in a vast majority as per your understanding ?

Because religion is a deeply polarizing issue - by rabble rousing it can be used to arouse strong passions - the nutters in every religion are the loudest and seem the most sure of themselves and the sane populace takes a backseat. In such a situation raising a sane voice would be simply be shouted down by using rhetoric and made up statistics of deaths and missing persons in the valley. The distrust for India in Kashmir runs quite high - Some of it is legitimate (our troops did commit human right abuses in the 90s) but most of it is made up and exaggerated by separatist leaders who have little relevance in a peaceful Kashmir. The solution the Kashmir problem is two-pronged - building up trust and normalcy with the rest of India, and economic development in the region. Khalistan and Sikh terrorism was a serious problem in the 80s. It has disappeared today - Why? did anything change with regards to the government policies - No. The youth simply had better things to do than pick up guns and go to fight for their religion

Yes by your standards. Which is why I asked you if you can explicitly document what these standards are. To me it needs to be the same way as Hindus live with Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis etc for 100s of years not a few decades here and there. There are hardly one or two incidents involving these communities and certainly no where on the scale of a Kashmir or Pakistan . Muslims on the other hand have a disproportionately high no.of violent incidents. So again back to square one answer my question in Post#695.

Your Post #695 is another one of your rhetorical questions that you repeat over and over again in an argument hoping for its validation. If a day comes when muslims who lead normal lives engage in unprovoked violence against other religions all over India, I will concede this argument. Till then you need to prove to me how an innocent Muslim can be held guilty solely because of his religious following, while an innocent Hindu in the same situation remains innocent.

[ganeshran]

The likes of Annadurai and Karunanidhi would have stripped the Bhagwaa brigade Bajrang Dal and VHP leaders of their proud chaddhis and whooped their sorry asses. :hysterical:

True that :giggle: Unlike Hussain who had no recourse against the violent bullying, leaders like Anna and Karuna would have (mis)used the entire government and political machinery to put the radical groups into place, violently if necessary. Thats why there were never protests against them. The 'defenders of the faith' would have run away as fast as they came..

[ganeshran]

I dont know anything about it. If I knew I would tell. You are free to arrive at whatever conclusions you want .. unlike you I don't argue for the sake of it. But If you are trying to tell me that VHP and Bajrang Dal only go after Muslims who transgress then you are wrong.

No they dont go only after Muslims, they go after Hindus too - but only the ones who are powerless to defend themselves against violent aggression. Its straight from the Shiv Sena-Raj Thackeray school of thought where their definition of saving the maratha manoos is to the bash up some north Indian taxi wallahs or vandalize shops to intimidate. Rather than any devotion to a cause- it only serves a shock value which can be used to attract attention to the organisation aiding in fund raising efforts. Hussain was an easy target - an individual painter without any institution protecting him. Anna and Karuna were the complete opposite. any such conflict would have only strenghtened their political position in the state and garner support for a no-holds-barred reply, which explains the absence of Hindu groups protesting against them. The absolute worst form of cowardice is to select an opponent who has no means of self defence.

[ganeshran]

I disagree in the sense that they have taken up quite big fish ... SRT and Big B to name just two if my memory serves me right. But yeah you cant expect them to go to Andaman and take up the cause of Hinduism. They simply dont have the means . Why ? Because by and large we produce the gutless psedudo secularists by the millions.

Again celebrities who bring publicity to the organization and help in fund raising. Soon enough these cursory protests are given up. This is not the Andaman we are talking about. Its the chief minister and political ideologue of the 11th largest and 5th richest state in India. The book is considered a prominent work of Annadurai (he did study though the whole Kamban Ramayana to write it) and displayed, published and distributed freely all over India (Tamil bookshops mainly). It had far greater potential for scandal than Hussain's works which basically required someone else to interpret and tell Hindus that it is offensive to them. In contrast, a casual glance of Kambarasam would be enough to challenge anyone's perception of the Ramayana and offend many of the core sensibilities of Hindus. As I said Bajrang Dal and VHP look for notoriety and shock value in a conflict. Political retaliation makes this difficult and creates long term repercussions which they dont want to deal with.

what did your fellow "Secularists" do during the Satanic Verses / Taslima saga ?

I have spent countless hours debating with right wing Islamists for the right to freedom of expression of Salman Rushdie and Tasleema Nasreen on why the government is right to provide sanctuary to her. Rusdhie's book banning was a vile act by the government, in Taslima's case government did better to offer her exile even though it doesnt give her citizenship. Anyone who takes different stands on Rushdie, Nasrin and Hussain is an utter hypocrite and would be arguing on behalf of a particular religion, not for their freedom of expression

[ganeshran]

lol going after Tendulkar and AB who have spotless track records is going to only further dry up the contributions.

Wrong. That is not how radical organisations work. the lifeline of an organisation like VHP is the funds received through donations. And the money raised through donation is directly proportional to the airtime and newsprint these organisations receive. Targeting celebrities like SRT, AB, Hussain is the easiest way to garner free publicity. That is why before every movie releases, there is a section of people who oppose it. Thats why VHP and Bajrang Dal go after celebrities. And thats why they dont go after politicians - because politicians retaliate with just as underhand means as these groups attack. Its not protecting the faith, its selecting the least powerful enemy and bashing him up. That is not bravery, its the vilest form of cowardice.

I'am not talking about you but your fellow Secularists in India who you claim are in large numbers and represent the true fabric of the society and ofcourse are the thekedars of everything that is holy and just in the land.

This is the biggest problem with your arguments. You seem to be unable to make the distinction between individual's stand and an entire group. You take one person's stand that suits your line of thinking and extrapolate it to the entire group's stand and apportion blame equally. Just like what your assertion that "No one really eats beef in India." No true secularist would defend persecution of Rushdie and Nasreen and then argue for Hussain. Thats blatant hypocricy - just like your stand of defending the persecution of Hussain and then supporting Rusdhie and Nasreen.

Nope. I went in the right direction. If you recall the very first thing I did was to prove the amount of intolerance that is inherent in their ideology by more than one means. ( "Holy" texts / Acts of Muhammad / History ). You also accepted that these were accurate. .

And if you recall you agreed with my stance that violence the norm in the middle ages and Christianity did just as many intolerant things in the name of religion as Islam. I asked you if you consider Christianity just as intolerant as Islam, but you skipped the argument itself. The conclusion that Islam is intolerant and all Muslims are evil has already been arrived by you and any fact that goes against this is either denied or twisted into supporting your conclusion.

The same is true elsewhere in India too. Non-Muslims living in and around communities with large Muslim populations are always on the lookout. Your own Shivajinagar example is a classic example. Your attempts to paint it as something normal tells me how "Secularism" works in reality in India. It basically calls upon people to simply pretend that there is nothing wrong. Nothing new. I have lived in such places. Everybody knows this but they simply pretend things are normal.

I understand your need to paint this picture of paranoia but this is simply not true. I lived in RT nagar (also a muslim dominated area) temporarily for around 2 months and there was not one single incident which I observed to support your stance. Of course when there are protests, it makes sense to stay away from the area but this is true for all causes and groups - not just muslims. If Karnataka Rakshana Vedike was organizing a rally in Mandya, I would stay away because there is every chance of the rally turning violent - but that doesnt reflect on Kannada speaking people in general.

Didnt this happen in Kashmir already ? Didnt his happen in 1947 already ? you have already started producing woefull excuses to brush those 2 disasters aside. You will do exactly the same for the next iteration of this nonsense.The 1% nonsense comes in very handy. Indeed you are telling me that literally countless acts of terror are a drop in the ocean which is otherwise tranquill. How can you lie thru your teeth about such grave matters ?

Firstly 1947, was not a one way street, violence was committed by both groups - we can argue till death about who is to be blamed more, but the fundamental fact to be accepted that both groups were guilty of violence against innocent people. If you deny this itself and argue that Muslims alone were to blamed for the partition violence, then it is futile to argue further on this because of the gap in perception. I ask you - does Gujrat 2001 and Delhi 1984 make Hinduism intolerant or innocent Hindus like me guilty? Because your argument implies just that. In any violent activity there is a section of people who indulge in it. All These people are guilty as sin and must be punished in no uncertain terms, no matter what percentage of the entire group they comprise of. But the innocent people who are not guilty should neither be prejudiced against nor be condemned due to their association with the group. I dont understand how you are able to justify your ludicrous stand to yourself - you advocate holding the entire muslim community (180 million people) responsible and branding them as evil because of the acts of a section of their populace. There is absolutely nothing that can validate this stand to any person who is free of religious prejudice. My stand is totally to the contrary. Punish any person guilty of violence or intolerance - no matter how many such people are. But branding even one innocent person guilty is an absolutely perverse thing to do.

[Mariyam]

BossBhai, what are your views on this?

[ganeshran]

I simply dont agree with this. Going after people like SRT is only going to invite a lot of trouble and result in a lot of alienation from the public and any sympathy they might have. This is again a classic example of how your sense of right and wrong is just sooo totally upside down. I cannot be bothered to explain this anymore. You can continue to believe that going up against SRT results in more donations and followers. Just go search the responses on this very forum when they took on SRT.

You are wrong and that is the reason why radical groups continuously take on celebrities regardless of their perceived character. It gives them the publicity and newstime to bring the organization into focus and creating a brand image. PMK took on Ranjikanth. Shiv Sena took on SRT, VHP took on SRT. RAj Thackeray took on AB. Almost every party has taken on SRK. These are just publicity hungry zealots who are too cowardly to apply the same stick to a chief minister who criticized the religion openly. The reason is that politicians possess the ability to hit back while most celebrities dont.

Allright lets do this a different way. Can you name some true secularists in India ? How about in this forum right here ?

I speak for myself here and my stand is consistent on this. But I dont see how you reserve the right to criticise anyone else's inconsistency when your stand is just as hypocritical.

What relevant fact have you presented here ? Absolutely nothing. Christianity is as relevant as price of Tamatar to this discussion. I also told you that what Christianity did has got nothing to do with Islam. They could have been worse than Islam for all I care. It means nothing in this context. Because Muhammad's wars were mostly against the Pagans and the Jews . The Jews had actually incubated his intolerant ideologies and then succumbed to that very same ideology. You do exactly the same. India has been doing it for centuries . Still hasn't learnt any lesson.

It is completely relavent here especially when you highlight Islam's intolerance in the middle and dark ages as an example of the intolerance of the current day muslims. I showed you just as many verses from Christianity and the examples of the crusades, the inquisitions and witch trials done in the middle ages. So I asked you if you say Christianity is just as intolerant today because of the violence perpetrated in its name in the middle ages? Why should current day innocent Muslims be held responsible for the violence perpetrated in the name of their religion, if Christians arent?

And by the way if words of Tagore, Lajpat Rai, Sarat Chandra, Swani Dayanand Sarswati , Vivekananda and ofcourse the Mahatma are anything to go by Iam with some fine company : Here is what Tagore has to say on this : and here is what Lala Lajpat Rai has to say : and here is what Sarat Chandra Chatterji i has to say : If you need more let me know.

This are Gandhi's comments on secularism

I came to the conclusion long ago … that all religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold by my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu … But our innermost prayer should be a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian.

I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. The State has nothing to do with it. The State would look after your secular welfare, but not your or my religion. That is everybody’s personal concern.

Hindustan belongs to all those who are born and bred here and who have no other country to look to. Therefore, it belongs to Parsis, Beni Israelis, to Indian Christians, Muslims and other non-Hindus as much as to Hindus. Free India will be no Hindu raj, it will be Indian raj based not on the majority of any religious sect or community, but on the representatives of the whole people without distinction of religion. I can conceive of a mixed majority putting the Hindus in a minority. They would be elected for their record of service and merits. Religion is a personal matter, which should have no place in politics.

The two-nation theory is an untruth…A Bengali Muslim speaks the same tongue that a Bengali Hindu does, eats the same food, has the same amusements as the Hindu neighbour. They dress alike. I have often found it difficult to distinguish by any outward sign between a Bengali Hindu and a Bengali Muslim. The same phenomenon is observable more or less in the South among the poor, who constitute the masses of India… Hindus and Muslims of India are not two nations.

Here are some quotes by Nehru

In a country like India, which has many faiths and religions, no real nationalism can be built except on the basis of secularity. Any narrower approach must exclude a section of the population and then nationalism itself will have a restricted meaning than it should possess… We have not only to live upto the ideals proclaimed in our Constitution, but make them a part of our thinking and living and thus build up a really integrated nation. That does not mean absence of religion, but putting religion on a different plane from that of normal political and social life. Any other approach in India would mean the breaking up of India.

We call our state a secular one. The word ‘secular’ is not a very happy one. And yet for want of better word, we have used it. What exactly does it mean? It does not obviously mean a state where religion is discouraged. It means freedom of religion and conscience including freedom for those who have no religion, subject only to their not interfering with each other or with the basic conceptions of our state… The word secular, however, conveys something much more to me, although that might not be its dictionary meaning. It conveys the idea of social and political equality. Thus, a caste-ridden society is not properly secular. I have no desire to interfere with any persons’ belief but when those beliefs become petrified in caste divisions, undoubtedly they affect the social structure of the state. They, prevent us from realising the idea of equality which we claim to place before ourselves.

Some quotes by sardar Patel - who has been called anti-Muslim by the rightwing parties

you cannot blame all Muslims for everything,. When Gandhiji was shot dead, let us not forget that there were Hindus who had danced with joy”. “if you think you can go on constantly troubling loyal Muslims just because they happen to be Muslims, remember our freedom is not worthwhile.

I feel sad when I hear people saying that Muslims should be removed from India. Those who say so have gone mad. Even a lunatic is better than a person made with rage. If we do this, are we ready to admit to the world that we are not fit to rule?”

India is one. One cannot divide a sea or split running waters of the sea. The Muslims have their roots in India. All their sacred and cultural places are in India. I am sure all those who have gone also would want to come back to India. India is as much of Muslims as it is of Hindus”.

For every comment that you pull up citing inability of Hindus and Muslims can live with each other, I can pull up 10 others which proclaim they can and India belongs to everyone. The very fact that Hindus and Muslims have mostly lived in peace since independence negates the very premise of your stand.

Spreading the guilt again ? Can we see some evidence to go with this ? You cant blame people for retaliating. It is common knowledge as to what Mahatma used to do during communal violence. This little tidbit of confession from the Mahatma tells the entire story : My error? Why, I may be charged with having committed a breach of faith with the Hindus. I asked them to lay their lives and their property at the disposal of the Mussalmans for the protection of their Holy Places. Even to-day I am asking them to practise Ahimsa, to settle quarrels by dying but not by killing. And what do I find to be the result? How many temples have been desecrated? How many sisters came to me with complaints? As I was saying to Hakimji [Ajmal Khan] yesterday, Hindu women are in mortal fear of Mussalman goondas. I had a letter from… How can I bear the way in which his little children were molested? How can I now ask Hindus to put up with everything patiently? I gave the assurance that the friendship with Mussalmans was bound to bear fruit. I asked them to befriend them, regardless of results. It is not in my power to make good that assurance. And yet I must ask the Hindus even to-day to die rather than kill. I can only do so by laying down my own life. I can teach them the way to die by my own example.

Just as I predicted in one of the previous posts, you will label the entire Muslim violence as full of hatred and Hindu violence as purely retaliation to this. The truth is not so one dimensional as it. There was violence from both sides - Hindus killed as many Muslims as Muslims killed Hindus - you can argue on who started it, but that doesnt take away the fact that both groups were guilty of violence. And most often this violence was not against the perpetrators of the violence but only against innocent defenseless people. I am not indicting any particular side here. I am saying both were guilty - this fact has to be accepted by you before we start arguing the magnitude of the violence.

My family used to live there for many years they re-located few yrs ago . One of the reasons yep the nonsense that goes on these areas. Especially during Muslim holidays when animals get culled in open. There are a few areas in B'luru that are a no-go areas on such days. While RT Nagar isn't as bad as some others but you cant really pretend that these areas are shining lights of Hindu-muslim unity. No true self respecting Hindu can live in these areas unless they are of your type who can take any and all nonsense in their stride. This is not what you can call living peacefully. The situation is just horrible in certain other towns like Gulbarga, Bhatkal , Hubli . I have been in all these areas lived there for long-long time and you really don't want to know what goes on there. Most of it never ever makes it to the front page unless people get killed. But to pretend that this amounts to living in peace and harmony is a sad joke and can happen only in India.

I have lived in RT Nagar, and in Hyderabad too for quite some time while starting my career. That area was full of Muslims too - never did someone say or do something that prevented me from practicing my religion. In fact in my area there was a temple and mosque just alongside each other - and never did the two groups ever even fight with each other. Lots of festivals fell on nearby days and I didnt see even strains of religious tension. I dont know if its by coincidence but I regularly happened to live in areas of minority population - both Christians and Muslims. The only incident I faced in my life of religious intolerance was in college when one Christian landlord asked me not to hang gods Photos in the house and pray using kumkum and Vibuthi. I politely told him that this was unacceptable to me and vacated the house within 2 months I have never seen a cow being killed in the open all through my life living in 4 different states and atleast 10-12 houses- so dont know where you are coming from on this. I hope you are not complaining about the sacrificing of goats during Bakrid.

You are comparing those incidents to Kashmir and 1947 ? That is pathetic. And Gujrat'2001 does not even make sense because you conveniently forget Godhra which caused the retaliation. Why don't you start with the event that started all the trouble ? Uncomfortable facts that will get in the way perhaps ?

I am not discussing the magnitude here. It is your eagerness to apportion blame on an entire community for the acts of a few. Godhra was a henious act and its perpetrators should be punished. But what crime did the 1300 people who were killed commit to have been killed? They were innocent just like most of the Hindus in the state. In 1984 there were 3000 sikhs burnt alive in the city because two of their coreligionists killing Indira Gandhi. Were the Sikhs who died have anything to do with the criminals? No. Does the act of the fanatics lead to blame on the entire Hindu community? NO. With the same logic I assert that the perpetrators of 1989 should be punished strictly, no one should be let go. But you using that incident to brand 180 millions as evil exposes a hate filled and perverted line of thought that has gotten used to so much hatred that it is ready to rationalize anything that challenges its beliefs.

[achilles]

This thread is still alive. Unbelievable.

[ganeshran]

Oh yes I'am aware of your capacity to blissfully ignore even multiple vivisection's of the country and pretend that there has been peace and tranquility only. Indeed you are not the only one to do that. We are all aware of this and I have already mentioned that this is how secularism works in India i.e by pretending nothing is horribly wrong and that there are only a few niggles. But those quotes were in response to your accusation that I manufacture stuff to suit my agenda ( It is arriving at a conclusion first and then working backwards and fitting in facts as per convenience to suit the conclusion and justify it.). The only ones whose stand were vindicated are the ones that I listed out (Tagore' date= Lajpat Rai, Sarat Chandra) . Of course the partition was a big deal and supported by quite a sizeable majority of Muslims no doubt. But it was Jinnah who made them believe that their interests would not be looked after in a united India, that Hindus would harm them and not let them practise their religion in peace. That an independent country was must to save Islam. That is why there was a sea change of voting and communal violence between 1937 and 1946. In the 1937 polls, Muslim league was washed out and it was considered a feudal party. it was after 1937 that Jinnah started to get more and more hardliner and started invoking the faith. It worked and the results of the 1946 polls are before us. But what I am saying that those who went to Pakistan are able to see the religious freedom that exists in India - that Hindus didnt look to violently attack Islam or Christianity and let other religions practise their faith with independence. Of course the past 65 years werent all rosy - there have been riots , incidents of religious violence and counter violence. But it has been an exception rather than a rule. Both communities have learnt to live and let live and not come in the way of each other's faith. Mappila riots were initiated by the Muslim peasants against Hindu landlords and it was the Muslims fault. But in the same period there were the Bhagalpur riots, the Ambala and gurgaon riots, the Daska riots with Sikhs which were started by Hindus, and the Multan riots by the Muslims. there have been violence and counter violence from both sides. To add to that there was also religious tension between the movements of the Shuddhi and Tableegh which were aimed at encouraging religios conversions to Hindus and Muslims respectively. Before starting to argue on the magnitude there is a need to first accept that fault lay with both sides. If you deny that and say that all violence is solely the responsibility of muslims then its futile to argue because of such a wide gap in perception. For e.g. You will eagerly blame Muslims for massacre of Hindus in the Calcutta riots of 1946 but rationalise the massacre of Muslims in Bihar during the same period.

When did I say there has been peace and tranquility only. In fact from the beginning I have asserted that there have been incidents but they have not been all through our history like you portray it to be. Your statement is the exact way communalists love to portray things - show that Muslims have forever engaged in unprovoked violence against hindus and hindus have forever been the victims. This is simply not true. Both sides engaged in violence before the partition. After the partition there have been incidents too, but they weren't always one sided. There have been provocations from both sides and retaliation from the other side. Your one sided interpretation of history is nothing short of being propaganda used to spread hatred. Communalists are quick to brand the entire muslim community as responsible for the violence against Hindus during riots but are equally quick to pin blame on only the perpetrators of Gujrat or the Bombay riots or Delhi 1984. This inconsistency in thought is glaring. If entire communities are to be blamed then innocent Hindus are just as guilty as those who killed innocent Sardar families in 1984. But blame doesnt work that way. Blame belongs solely to those who engage in violence and not those who are bystanders powerless to do anything about the destruction. This collective blaming is something Nazi Germany has engaged in with disastrous results. Its not something that belongs in our country. I didnt accuse you of manufacturing stuff, but rather selectively interpreting facts when it suits your agenda. When it suits you the Muslim personal law becomes the Sharia in its entirety, when it suits you, entire population of India doesnt eat beef, When it suits you all secularists have the same stand of defending Hussain but criticising Rushdie.

[ganeshran]

That is because your bar for declaring that there is trouble is conveniently set at such a level that you will claim there is not much wrong untill every single muslim starts to indulge in violence as you stated in an earlier post. My standards are a bit different. So naturally you feel peeved at what I say. Feel free to tell my why my standards are wrong instead of making these wild proclamations.

My bar is set at no convenient level. It is the extremely simple logic that guilty people are guilty and innocent people are innocent, regardless of their numbers or religious affiliation. The very fact that this looks illogical to you speaks volumes about your standards. Your standards are wrong because you simply cannot hold people guilty who have not commited any wrong. If this looks so preposterous to you, then its because of the blind hate that clouds your judgement process. That you so calmly rationalised 1300 innocent people killed in Gujrat and 3000 people killed in Delhi while you condemn innocent lives lost in Muslim violence. For me the yardstick is the same - any innocent life lost is worthy of equal condemnation and the guilty party deserving equal punishment.

Your need to read up on the history of India again because All major acts of provocation have been initiated by the Muslims. As I said before : this had been going on ever since the Mughal Empire disintegrated after Aurangzeb and the Mullah in chief at that time - Shah Wali Ullah invited the Afghan ruler to invade India and save it from being taken over by the Kaffir. This is how the Muslims looked at the situation and the flame was kept alive by a succession of Jihadis After him. The chief culprits being Syed Ahmad Barelvi , Shariatullah, Titu Mian, Dudhu Mian , Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Ali Brothers, Allama Iqbal and ofcourse finally Jinnah just to name a few. All these guys are treated as heroes in Pakistan. Indeed our own First Education Minister Maulana Abul Kalam Azad speaks very approvingly of uber bigots like Wali Ullah and Sirhindi. ( And this is the guy we awarded the Bharat Ratna.) The sense of separatism and the feeling that India should revert back to Muslim rule because in their view they were once upon a time the rightful rulers of this land is simply unmistakable in all their actions and words. Let me know if you want to read up on the details they are pretty long and gory and just utterly intolerant. So I dont buy the "Both communities were equally responsible" nonsense.

Of course Shah Waliullah wanted Muslim rule to continue - he was an Islamic scholar who feared for his own position if the Marathas took over. Hence the invitation to Abdali and the battle of Panipat. What is this supposed to prove? India wasnt even an idea back then and the Mughal empire wanted to save itself against the Marathas. The fact that you mention Maulana Abul Kalam Azad with the leaders who fought for the partition is totally absurd. Here is a man who wholeheartedly opposed Jinnah and his two-nation theory. Who was a loyal member of the congress and a staunch nationalist. Another nationalist was Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan - who strongly opposed the partition of the country and told Gandhi - "You have thrown us to the wolves". The freedom movement was not so black and white that all Muslims were fighting for partition and all Hindus were opposing it. there were Muslim nationalist leaders too, just that they got shouted out in the backdrop of immense communal violence and rabble rousing.

The problem is you speak as though 1984 is a constant recurring theme. It is not. But the reverse is not true of violence initiated by Muslims. Lets not even talk about going to the Kashmir scale. So I stand by my claim that you will do anything and everything to sweep these acts under the rug.

And you will do anything and everything to rationalise all violence done by Hindus while repeatedly stressing on violence by Muslims alone. Violence happened in 1984, It happened in 1992, It happened in 2001 - None of these events and those committed by Muslims can be justified. All are heinous and people who encouraged them must be punished. I understand your need to put a common thread to all violence done in the name of Islam to highlight its intolerance but its selective interpretation. Most of the violence was in different eras and had totally different agendas attached to it.

So this is supposed to prove that Most Muslims were normal , secular and peace loving and innocent exactly how ? ( This is how this side discussion started when you proclaimed in Post#680 that : But that doenst take away the fact that an innocent Muslim who is more preoccupied with his day-to-day living should not be held guilty because of the action of members of his religion and then I said that 1947 and Kashmir dont happen if most are innocent and then you said : "If you can prove that an innocent muslim is guilty just because of his religious affiliation, I will concede defeat and move on" ) . So why did the supposedly innocent Muslims vote for a bigot like Jinnah en-masse ?

They supported Jinnah because they believed their religion was in danger from persecution. the rampant communal violence in the 1940s only served to reinforce this notion. Why did all the Hindus vote for Congress - it had an equally impressive performance as the league as well. And if the Muslims were so hell bent on partition all along, why didnt they support Jinnah in 1937, when the atmosphere wasnt as communally charged? Muslim league fared very badly in that election - after which Jinnah started changing his tone.

[ganeshran]

And the fact that a vast majority of Muslims voted for Jinnah still doesnt count as a crime that needs to be punished for you is because ... ?

How can voting for someone be a crime - especially in a communally charged atmosphere where people's religions were being pitted against each other.

At this point you need to tell me in very simple terms how you have exonorated the vast majority of Muslim community for the acts of 1947 and 1989. These two events could not have happened without explicit and impicit support of large no.of muslims. Keep in mind your stance that you keep repeating ad-nauseum that most are innocent. Either you tell me how those acts got done by only a small bunch of bigots against the wishes of a vast majority that are obviously beyond blame in your book. Or how these 2 acts (amongst many ) are not an indictor of the otherwise truly peacefull and innocent nature of Muslims. Dont even bring in 2001 and 1984 there is no equivalent to 1947 and 1989. Period. So go ahead tell me.

When did I exonerate anyone but the innocent? I said those who didnt partake in the violence should not be punished. Your imagined guilt by association doesnt make them guilty, but only highlights the pleasure that you get from proclaiming them as evil. Those who indulged in violence are guilty but those who were bystanders and powerless to stop the violence are innocent. Same is true for 2001 or 1984 or for that matter any violent incident that happens anywhere.

Is that why the country got divided ? Yes there were a few who were against it but that means very little when we were left to deal with Pakistan on the left BD on the right and no shortage of Jihadis still in the middle of India.

The country got divided because a significant percentage supported Jinnah because the Muslim league claimed to be the defender of the faith and fed horror stories to people how Hindus wont let Islam remain in India. The violence during that time only made people believe their stand and take a hardline position.

Again most of that violence was initiated by Muslims. Read Freedom at Midnight by Lappere.

A Lot of violence in the 40s was also initiated by Hindus as well as Muslims- from 40 to 47, if you see the death counts in religious violence, the numbers would be very close to each other.

What ?

In 1946, Congress secured 91% of the vote in Hindu majority consitutencies while the Muslim league secured 85% of the vote in Muslim majority constituencies. If you see the overall votes polled, the Muslim league got 75% of the total muslim vote.