Why Gujarat 'Banned' Parzania

[CC1981]

Re: Why Gujarat 'Banned' Parzania

My uncle who lives in Bangalore told me once that he needs to be able to speak perfect kannada and get off as a kannadiga if he has to avoid getting hit during these water related tense times.

can't he pretend to be mallu or andhra or something else ? What about non-tamil non-kannadiga people living in Karnataka ? They getting clobbered too over Kaveri ?

[yoda]

Re: Why Gujarat 'Banned' Parzania

My uncle who lives in Bangalore told me once that he needs to be able to speak perfect kannada and get off as a kannadiga if he has to avoid getting hit during these water related tense times.

can't he pretend to be mallu or andhra or something else ? What about non-tamil non-kannadiga people living in Karnataka ? They getting clobbered too over Kaveri ?

you have to be able to prove it to the mob on the spot and the easiest way for him was to speak perfect kannada and behave like he has been in karnataka forever. I have also read of mobs burning theatres running tamil movies. as in gujarat i am sure this again is a very small minority and i sure hope atleast in bangalore now the situation has improved since the 80s.

[kumble_rocks]

Re: Why Gujarat 'Banned' Parzania Actually the situation in Bangalore is still tense. I am from karnataka and I am ashamed at the behaviour of some of these mobs against Tamilians. The hatred is much more deeper than the cauvery issue. Some Kannadigas feel that Tamilians do not assimilate and they propogate their language in Bangalore. Same thing is happening in Mumbai were some Maharashtrians are very angry at North Indians especially those from Bihar and UP for imposing Hindi. I personally feel that these folks are misguided by politicians and their is no justification for harming an innocent individual whether in Mumbai , Bangalore or anywhere else.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Gujarat 'Banned' Parzania

Gujarat was never a state which could boast of communal harmony. Even when I was working in Baroda a while back (much before the Modi days), riots between Hindus and Muslims were common. This was both in Baroda and in the neighboring ahmedabad. That said, most parts are peaceful. It is the main city area where there are a zillion shops which has a gazillion muslims that were riot prone. What is even more despicable in my opinion is the situation in Karnataka where the state govt refuses to abide by the Supreme court decision to let water to Tamil Nadu and if things get tense you will find kannadigas locating tamilians and hitting them. My uncle who lives in Bangalore told me once that he needs to be able to speak perfect kannada and get off as a kannadiga if he has to avoid getting hit during these water related tense times. This was a while back and I am not sure if the situation has improved since.

I have noticed Gujarati have very very strong sub-nationalism of Gujratiness going on and they don't take attack on it lightly and moreover given that they have been very strong religiously; may be they have chip on their shoulder and still not gotten over the Somnath temple episode. In fact even in that Somnath episode they made sure the invader went with quite a bruised face. sample this tid-bit..

The defeat of the Shahis (rulers of punjab) opened up the Gangetic plains to the Muslims and Mahmud Ghazni repeatedly attacked the main Hindu kingdoms ruled by the Gurjara-Pratiharas and sacked Hindu temples. The main ruler in those days was Rajyapala Pratihara who resisted Mahmud Ghazni's raids, partly successfully. In his last attack on Somnath, Mahmud Ghazni successfully sacked the temple at Prabhasa Patan in Gujarat, but on his way back he was roundly defeated by the Gurjara rulers of North Gujarat. Mahmud never came back to India after that.

This defeat so rankled a fanatic ruler of persia named Masud that he landed with a huge army to defeat and convert the people. his part of history u won't find in romila thapar books. Against Masud for the first time all hindu rulers of India made a concerted attack not even a single soldier of Masud was allowed to go back after defeat. They didn't do the folly of shahi rulers and in later years prithvi raj chauhan, where in Hindu tradition u let the enemy go back after defeating them. Thye recognised they are dealing with vermins and only grief will come from dharma-yuddh. BTW even today near baharaich (in UP) this fanatic ruler Masud's grave sees big urs festival and he has turned into Gazi Mian and is worshipped as allah ka nek banda; otoh we don't even like to mention that part of history eulogizing vicory of hindu rulers in that war. Let us come back to modern history and see how things used to be done by secualrists including our great leader Gandhiji. Thanks to Lavakare following is the reproduction from his article. ********************************************* Let's go back then to Gandhi's role in the Khilafat Movement. That movement, remember, was sparked by Kemal Pasha's decision at the end of the First World War to finish off the regime of the autocratic and dynastic Sultan of Turkey, who was titled the Caliph and was looked upon as the temporal representative of Allah as well as the religious head of the entire Islamic world. Unwilling to free themselves from the chains of mullahs and maulvis, the anger of the Muslims in India against the British rule assumed a new edge. For the first time, these Muslims remembered the Hindus.

The Muslim League session of December 1919 discussed what was believed to be Khilafat injustice and invited the Congress leaders to join hands with them. Gandhi jumped at the offer. "If the Hindus wish to cultivate eternal friendship with Mussalmans," said Gandhi, "they must perish with them in the attempt to vindicate the honour of Islam" (V B Kulkarni in his India And Pakistan, page 219).

Gandhi decided to lead the Khilafat agitation himself even before the Congress called for the Non-cooperation Movement on the Khilafat issue in its emergency session in Calcutta in August 1920.

Thus had Gandhi let religion enter the political domain - 'secularists', please note.

Occupying the position of the "right hand and left hand" of Gandhi in his Khilafat agitation were two brothers: Maulana Mohammed Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali. Why were two Muslims chosen? As Gandhi himself explained, he was "seeking the friendship of good Mussalmans... to understand the Mussalman through contact with their purest and most patriotic representatives". (A Hindu Nationalist in Gandhi-Muslim Conspiracy, page 70).

These two blue-eyed Muslims of Gandhi, today's 'secularists' must note, were the ones who later wrote a letter to the Amir of Afghanistan inviting him to invade Bharat. The letter was followed by a telegram urging him not to enter into any kind of peace arrangement with the British. The telegram's draft was written in the distinctive handwriting of... Gandhi himself. Yes, Gandhi was willing to assist the Amir in staging a war against the British on Indian soil. He wrote as much in Young India in May 1921.

Although the Khilafat Movement fizzled out in 1921 itself, propaganda was set afloat among Kerala's local Muslims -- the Moplahs -- that the British regime had ended and Khilafat had been reinstated. The time to eliminate all kafirs had come, they were told.

The Moplahs followed it up by anointing one Mohommed Haji as their Caliph and proclaimed jihad -- against the British first and, after being defeated by the colonialists, against the Hindus. According to the Report of the Enquiry Committee of the Servants of India Society, the number of Hindus murdered was 1,500, the number of those forcibly converted was 20,000 and property looted was assessed at about Rs 30 million, while the molestation and abduction of Hindu women was apparently endless. In The Future of Indian Politics, page 252, Dr Annie Besant wrote, "They murdered and plundered abundantly, and killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatise. Somewhere about a lakh (100,000) of people were driven from their homes with nothing but their clothes they had on, stripped of everything."

Today's 'secularists' and today's Gandhi must note the resolution of the Congress Working Committee on the Moplah carnage. While condemning their violence, it stated that

"the Working Committee desires it to be known that the evidence in its possession shows that provocation beyond endurance was given to the Moplahs". Ah, "provocation" was defensible then but not now after Godhra!

Incidentally, despite Dr Besant's account, the CWC put the figure of conversions at just three. Gandhi's reaction to the Moplah carnage must also be noted by today's 'secularists'.

According to B R Ambedkar's book, Pakistan, page 148, Gandhi's comment on the Moplah marauders was: "They are brave and god-fearing people who were fighting for what they consider as religion, and in a manner which they consider as religion." And, in a Young India issue of 1924, Gandhi wrote, "My own experience but confirms the opinion that the Mussalman as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu as a rule is a coward. Need the Hindus blame the Mussalman for his cowardice?"

In the context of the latter 'logic', today's 'secularists' must tell us what their Sabarmati practitioner of non-violence would have said of the boiling Hindu blood, post-Godhra, having spilt beyond 'cowardice'.

Here's another instance of Gandhi's 'logic' in defence of his Mussalman. On December 23, 1926, Swami Shraddhananda, an eminent Congress as well as Arya Samaj leader who had launched a campaign to bring back the converted into the Hindu fold, was shot four times in his sick bed by a Muslim youth, Abdul Rashid. Although hanged for that crime, Rashid was treated by the Muslim community as some sort of martyr deserving of a special namaaz in the masjids and five complete recitations of the Koran. And in the Congress session in Guwahati, 1926, Gandhi himself said, "I have called Abdul Rashid a brother and I repeat it. I do not even regard him as guilty of Swami's murder. Guilty indeed are those who excited feeling of hatred against one another."

(History of Congress, page 516, by Pattabhi Sitaramayya, a prominent Congress leader.) Today's 'secularists' -- who are, post-Godhra, simply itching to hang Narendra Modi in the public square -- must note what Gandhi's concept of 'guilty' was.

These 'secular' chappies must also note that Gandhi, who had such a soft corner for the likes of Abdul Rashid, the Ali brothers and the Moplahs, was the one who refused to sign a petition for saving the life of Bhagat Singh, and he was also the one who condemned Chhatrapati Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind as misguided patriots (

The Tragic Story of Partition, page 82, Jagaran Publication, 2nd edition, 1984, by H V Seshadri). And yes, these 'secularists' must also note how the Ali brothers -- those "purest representatives of the Mussalman mind" -- reciprocated Gandhi's affection for them after they had no need of him once the Khilafat Movement became history.

In 1924, Maulana Mohammed Ali stated: "However pure Mr Gandhi's character may be, he must appear to me, from the point of religion, inferior to any Mussalman even though he be without character." A year later, the Maulana 'improved' upon that statement by saying "Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr Gandhi"

(History of the Freedom Movement by R C Majumdar). But Gandhi was sold on his brand of communal harmony and on his Mussalmans, whatever they said about him in the Islamic context. Thus, in his post-prayer speech at Birla Mandir, New Delhi, on April 6, 1947,

Gandhi said, "Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter might make up their minds to undo even their existence." In another post-prayer speech asking the Partition-inflicted Hindus not to seek refuge in India, he said, "They should not be afraid of death. After all, the killers will be none other than our Muslim brothers."

If the 'secularists' in the media and elsewhere want the Hindus of 2002 to accept those Sabarmati shibboleths of non-violence and amity with the Muslims at any cost, they ought to also demand that the red carpet be laid for Pakistan to just stride into Srinagar and all the way down into Sabarimalai -- via Sabarmati, if you please. PS: BTW that legendary statement about hindu coward muslim bully Gandhij made when some gandhivadi from Godhaar reported to him about how hard their life have been turned into by muslims there [Yes godhara has not become godhara in 2002 that place was like that snce ages and it wasno coincidence that particuler event of 2002 happend in Godhara..........

[CC1981]

Re: Why Gujarat 'Banned' Parzania

In the context of the latter 'logic', today's 'secularists' must tell us what their Sabarmati practitioner of non-violence would have said of the boiling Hindu blood, post-Godhra, having spilt beyond 'cowardice'.

It is simple - Hindus are becomming more and more like Muslims.

Thus had Gandhi let religion enter the political domain - 'secularists', please note.

So ? Does the author realize the meaning of the word 'secular' or does he simply, as is usual with these folks, think that Secular means complete divorce between religion and governance, as seen in America or much of the west ?? Well, in this case, the author will do well to realize that India's secularism is not as shambolic as that of the US or much of the west - which is essentially atheism on the suface and covert support of Christianity below the surface. India's definition of secularism is much more literal : Secular means the balance between all religions and non-religions. Ie, it is not the divorce of religion from matters of state but equal representation of all religions and non religious folks. Obviously it has several problems stemming from vote bank politics and corruption, but based on India's definition (which i would like to point out again, is the literal definition), the government is perfectly within rights to back a particular religion or viewpoint if it feels that it'll restore the balance.

[yoda]

Re: Why Gujarat 'Banned' Parzania

In the context of the latter 'logic'' date=' today's 'secularists' must tell us what their Sabarmati practitioner of non-violence would have said of the boiling Hindu blood, post-Godhra, having spilt beyond 'cowardice'. [/quote'] It is simple - Hindus are becomming more and more like Muslims.

You can wish it, but it ain't happening. :wtg:

[CC1981]

Re: Why Gujarat 'Banned' Parzania

You can wish it, but it ain't happening. :wtg:

Buddy, trust me- i hope and wish that you are right - but i've seen too many isolated incidents and hearing people talk in idle convos to realize that slowly the tide is turning. We can still nip it in the bud though.

[Birbal3]

Re: Why Gujarat 'Banned' Parzania Yes BRILLIANT work Dada... I for one would like to watch the movie...just to see what it is all about... Anyway, an interesting point that NO Indian journalist has made as far as I can tell is that the victims... a Parsi family who were killed along with the Muslims they took shelter with... was a bit ironic considering the HISTORY of Parsis and Muslims.. The original Parsis were DRIVEN OUT OF PERSIA when Islam took over and they reached Gujarat and were given REFUGE there... and they were told they could continue practicing their ANCIENT religion...and not convert to Hinduism... all they had to do was blend in and not cause problems... Irony is that Parsis adopted the Gujarati language and dress...etc... and were among the MOST successful and RICHEST communites in India due to the HOSPITALITY and TOLERANCE of the Gujaratis...

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Gujarat 'Banned' Parzania U are welcome guys. BTW boss I have seen thoguth the word-play macinations of CC so I reposnd to only those posts which has sthg worth responding . I refuse to play scrabble in guise of debate. :wtg:

[Birbal3]

Re: Why Gujarat 'Banned' Parzania Interesting History of Parsis in Gujarat... Parsis are Zoroastrians who arrived in India 1200 years ago from Persia. They were fleeing persecution at the hands of Arab conquerors invading Persia. They landed in Diu, off the coast of Gujarat in India, carrying nothing but a holy flame from their Temple they had left behind. From Diu they went to Sanjan in Gujarat, where the local Hindu ruler granted them land and they began a new life. They were free to follow their own religion and erected their first Fire Temple soon after. They were called Parsis - to denote the region from where they had come - Pars, (Persia). From these humble beginnings emerges a grand chapter of progress, growth, expansion, diversification, accomplishments and achievements unsurpassed by any other community in India. Through hard work and social commitment, they founded business empires, colleges, hospitals and research institutes ? and in the process a very vibrant business culture in Bombay. Jamsetji Tata and JRD Tata, the Godfathers of India?s industrial development, were true visionaries ? combining business with philanthropy. Dr. Homi Bhabha, Zubin Mehta, the Wadias, the Godrejs, Retd. Field Marshal Sam Maneckshaw, Admiral Jal Cursetji, Air Marshal Engineer, are all from this very distinguished community, which is guided by three principles in life ? Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds. Today, their numbers are fast decreasing ? the community faces the threat of extinction ? for reasons that are linked to the belief structure of their clergy. Zoroastrianism is a non-proselytising religion ? there are no converts. One can only be born into it. Marriage outside the community is not encouraged. Parsi women who have married outside their community are ?derecognised? and are not allowed into the Fire Temple. The birth rates are declining and the community is fast ageing. Inter-marriage within the community has increased the incidence of certain genetic disorders ? people are marrying late, or not at all. This feature is a tribute to the contribution of this dynamic Indian community in all spheres of Indian life ? arts, sciences, politics, business, and foremost of all ? in social commitment and philanthropy. Despite their meagre numbers, the Parsi community did not seek any special privileges under the Constitution, and yet played a large role in the development of the country.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Gujarat 'Banned' Parzania

Interesting History of Parsis in Gujarat... Parsis are Zoroastrians who arrived in India 1200 years ago from Persia. They were fleeing persecution at the hands of Arab conquerors invading Persia. They landed in Diu, off the coast of Gujarat in India, carrying nothing but a holy flame from their Temple they had left behind. From Diu they went to Sanjan in Gujarat, where the local Hindu ruler granted them land and they began a new life. They were free to follow their own religion and erected their first Fire Temple soon after. They were called Parsis - to denote the region from where they had come - Pars, (Persia). From these humble beginnings emerges a grand chapter of progress, growth, expansion, diversification, accomplishments and achievements unsurpassed by any other community in India. Through hard work and social commitment, they founded business empires, colleges, hospitals and research institutes ? and in the process a very vibrant business culture in Bombay. Jamsetji Tata and JRD Tata, the Godfathers of India?s industrial development, were true visionaries ? combining business with philanthropy. Dr. Homi Bhabha, Zubin Mehta, the Wadias, the Godrejs, Retd. Field Marshal Sam Maneckshaw, Admiral Jal Cursetji, Air Marshal Engineer, are all from this very distinguished community, which is guided by three principles in life ? Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds. Today, their numbers are fast decreasing ? the community faces the threat of extinction ? for reasons that are linked to the belief structure of their clergy. Zoroastrianism is a non-proselytising religion ? there are no converts. One can only be born into it. Marriage outside the community is not encouraged. Parsi women who have married outside their community are ?derecognised? and are not allowed into the Fire Temple. The birth rates are declining and the community is fast ageing. Inter-marriage within the community has increased the incidence of certain genetic disorders ? people are marrying late, or not at all. This feature is a tribute to the contribution of this dynamic Indian community in all spheres of Indian life ? arts, sciences, politics, business, and foremost of all ? in social commitment and philanthropy. Despite their meagre numbers, the Parsi community did not seek any special privileges under the Constitution, and yet played a large role in the development of the country.

folk tale is that initially they were not being allowed and the king send the symbolic message with a glss full of water , signifying there is no room available for them and place is teemin with its own population... Parsis added some sugar in the water and sent the glass back telling they won't need extra space just like sugar in water...... don't know til what extent this symolic messaging is true but it certainly undrlines the intellectual state of both party involved