First time u heard about politics and actually took interest

[Lurker]

No... you referred to Syed Hussain's last battle at Karbala as a "sacrifice"... which I proved otherwise...

BS. You have proved nothing. If anything you have proved your inability to grasp the whole angle. But if you want to pursue this lets do that too. What do YOU personally think of Syed Hussain's sacrifice?

I read the Premchand bit....but as to why Indian muslims have a bettter knowledge of Hindu culture, the truth is simple. ALL Indian muslims have ancestral roots in Hinduism, and it is a historic fact that all these muslims are the generational descendants of forced conversions.

WOW! Spoken like a true ungrateful man eh Hari? So basically Indian Muslims know more about Hindus than vice versa because they were Hindus once. Hmm okay. By that same token Indians must have their parental heritage somewhere connected in USA since we know so much more about USA is it not? When an American does not know about Rest of the world he is deemed stupid, when an Indian knows about USA he is deemed smart. But hey if a Muslim knows about Hindu culture thats because he was a Hindu once!

Also, Indian muslims live in a predominantly Hindu majority nation and due to daily interaction, cultural and religious knowledge is inevitable. Applying the same logic, Indian Hindus living all their lives in Islamic countries will have a LOT better knowledge of muslim culture than the knowledge muslims in those countries possess of Hindu culture...anything surprising ?

BS. The article I quoted was written by Premchand. At the time of its writing India was undivided and atleast 35-40% of the population was Muslim. Urdu was principle language and NOT Hindi. So what prompted Premchaned to write this? Any insights there?

Population of Hindus in Pakistan at time of partition was 20%. Now it is 2 % .. see the stats of those who converted to Islam in last 60 years.

Irrelevant to discussion.

See stats of muslims in India involved in anti national acts, terrorism, Kashmir support, BD, drug traficking, and all sorts of mass violent terror activities , plus economic offences , smuggling, etc.

Thats BS again. You spoke of Muslims as anti-national and hence not getting top posts. Give me some concrete evidence that justifies why a Muslim in Meerut should not get to the top of Indian Armed Forces. Dont give me this BD drug trafficing.

You may consider me racist.... so will Indira Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and others...I just don't care too hoots.

You should care. If you ever uttered the same sentence in the court of law you shall be put behind bars. If you ever rise to the top and make a policy decision based on your sentiments you would be kicked off that post if this is proved. Long story short - if you have guts to stand behind it then try it and see where the Constitution of India shall land you. Go ahead, give it a shot! xxx

[Guest dada_rocks]

Hahaha you do more U-turns than your mentor Modi. First you say "Muslims are welcome in Indian Armed forces" followed by "I suspect them overall" before landing with a "We are happy they chose not to join". Bina pendi ka lota :hysterical::hysterical: Dont worry about yourself, Biharis are falling over each other to join. Sample this. Some states have done well is Bihar, where young men appear eager to enlist. This was tragically demonstrated in Darbhanga and Chapra districts in July 1999, where twenty youths were killed by police firing on a stampede during an army recruitment drive. So yes there is no dearth of Biharis. We are speaking of Gujjus here. Again give me cold hard numbers, not some **** and bull story. xxx

Those who have thinking capability can se.. now try answering this give just one reaosn why should one trust a population in indian army which has worked for its division in past.. one reason will be good enough.. That's your problem I don;t look for gujju I look for indians who work for india ( that's where ROPers kind of not get my unqualified support.. Too bad once bittne twice shy) Go check donors list you will find bIhar has played truant.. Why the heck it matters where from people join isn;t it sufficient that peopel join.. Some have proclivity sense to support financially some do it with self-labour.. Reminds me of those fund-raising days in my village: Those who cud not afford to give money would say we will provide our labour.. If everyone says the same we will provide our own hands project will never kick off. To call those who volunteert o work as greater contributor as opposed to those who sponosred the whole project is stupid way of looking at things.. yes if there is no hand available to work and those who have finianced are insiisting that they will not volunteer as labour then some question will be raisesd.. Till that happens one is basically second-guessing those individual's commitment to the project. This is nothing but bloody cynical

[Lurker]

I am not welcoming Iam happy that they do not join..

Ah so lets seal that issue right here so we dont keep chasing the tail. DR is happy that Indian Muslims do not join Indian Army.

now can u tell GHeneral KAriapaa why he should change his views other than the PC crap.. I know neither I have first hand experience of defending country nor you but Kariappa has and if he has that opinion then why........

Because clearly Kariappa was hallucinating. For starters it is amply evident that Muslims were NOT welcome in Indian Armed Forces. Woohoo!! What a slap of Indian Democracy? I am just so perturbed that no one even challenged this a$$ in the court of Justice. Yes he is a war hero but I have no respect for a man who is a bigot. Second this article appears in, surprise surprise, the right wing magazine. Do you see an angle here? Lastly Kariappa contested an election(post retirement) on Shiv Sena ticket and got living daylights kicked out of him. Serves him right I say :tounge_smile:

My stance is clear if I had my way I wud bar them from joining but since contitution allows it so I have no other option but I thank them for not joining.. I am not begrudging at all their absence..

Good that you realize that Constitution was created just for maniacs like you :hysterical:

Number is your fixation I deal in real problems not fictional.. There is no personnel crunch and hence I don't care about the make-up of army.. As long as an indian is not abetting LeT (your love for those LeT helpers in idnia notwithstanding) or any other anti-national in what capcity he serves India is immaterial for me.. he cud be fighting at border or cleaning in some sulabh Shauchalaya all are appreciated. It;'s just destintiy someone got to serve in one way some in another.. Problem are those who choose to harm India not thhose who serve India in whatever capacity that be..

Blah blah blah!!!!!! Question again: WHERE ARE THE GUJJUS IN DEFENCE FORCES? Respond to that and not about Sulabh Sauchalaya :hysterical:

[Guest HariSampath]

What do we know about about Syed Hussain's sacrifice at Karbala? Some of us,if not most, may have seen the Muharram procession every year. A procession where young Muslims would beat themselves(sometimes very violently) and keep chanting " Hai Hussain, Hai Hussain". What effort did we ever make to learn of what exactly happened? If Islam has been in India for a millenium doesnt it mean that Hindus have lived with Muslims for 1000 years and still not understood them much at all? Do we know that Hussain's quandry at Karbala was similar to what Arjuna faced at Mahabharta? Should he lift his weapon to kill his own relatives, followers of his Grandfather's Ummat(not Ummah)? The only difference was Syed Hussain faced all of this without a Krishna by his side. And how many of us who know about Karbala are willing to give it even a fraction of importance of what we give to Arjuna-Krishna and the Geeta?

What did Syed Hussain "sacrifice" in Karbala ? and how was that a sacrifice , for what cause ? Hussain's situation was similar to Arjuna in Kurukshetra ?? NO WAY. The dilemna of Arjuna was NOT religious ( like shia vs sunni)...It was a larger question of " if my relatives act against the spirit of Dharma , can I or can't I fight and kill them, what is my duty as a king ? "...and then the larger philosophical question of birth, death, what is killed and what is not...NO WAY this is in anyway a comparision to Syed Hussain fighting at karbala. Arjuna was never making any "sacrifice".. he was performing his duty... and anyway philosophically there is NO COMPARISION between the Gita and Syed Hussain, its common knowledge world over by people of all religions that the Gita is perhaps the greatest philosophical discourse , and total and complete in dealing with all aspects of existence, action , knowledge,Life, duty, God etc Why ever would any Hindu want to give the same importance to Syed Hussain and his sectarian war , that is accorded to The Gita ??

[Lurker]

Go check donors list you will find bIhar has played truant.. Why the heck it matters where from people join isn;t it sufficient that peopel join.. Some have proclivity sense to support financially some do it with self-labour..

It matters just as it matters to YOU that people who pray towards West(and not East) dont get picked up. It matters just as much it matters to YOU that people who look at Moon and not Sun dont get picked up. So back to the question. After all these tall talks was Sagarkia Ghosh correct? Where are the Gujjus in Indian Armed Forces? Gimme some cold numbers DR. Put up or shut up. xxx

[Lurker]

What did Syed Hussain "sacrifice" in Karbala ? and how was that a sacrifice , for what cause ? Hussain's situation was similar to Arjuna in Kurukshetra ?? NO WAY. The dilemna of Arjuna was NOT religious ( like shia vs sunni)...It was a larger question of " if my relatives act against the spirit of Dharma , can I or can't I fight and kill them, what is my duty as a king ? "...and then the larger philosophical question of birth, death, what is killed and what is not...NO WAY this is in anyway a comparision to Syed Hussain fighting at karbala. Arjuna was never making any "sacrifice".. he was performing his duty... and anyway philosophically there is NO COMPARISION between the Gita and Syed Hussain, its common knowledge world over by people of all religions that the Gita is perhaps the greatest philosophical discourse , and total and complete in dealing with all aspects of existence, action , knowledge,Life, duty, God etc Why ever would any Hindu want to give the same importance to Syed Hussain and his sectarian war , that is accorded to The Gita ??

BS again. Who/what/where has compared Syed Hussain to Arjuna? Dont make irrelevant points here Hari. Stick to the topic. What is your opinion of Syed Hussain at Qarbala. Keep it straight. xxxx

[Guest HariSampath]

BS again. Who/what/where has compared Syed Hussain to Arjuna? Dont make irrelevant points here Hari. Stick to the topic. What is your opinion of Syed Hussain at Qarbala. Keep it straight. xxxx

Here are your own BS words from that BS article

Do we know that Hussain's quandry at Karbala was similar to what Arjuna faced at Mahabharta? Should he lift his weapon to kill his own relatives, followers of his Grandfather's Ummat(not Ummah)? The only difference was Syed Hussain faced all of this without a Krishna by his side.

And you say you haven't made any comparision of Syed Hussain with Arjuna ??? Absolute balderdash Lurks, I am disappointed...please read your article carefully...you HAVE made the comparision, in both letter and spirit, and are now denying it when I pointed it out

[Lurker]

Hussain's situation was similar to Arjuna in Kurukshetra ?? NO WAY. The dilemna of Arjuna was NOT religious ( like shia vs sunni)...It was a larger question of " if my relatives act against the spirit of Dharma , can I or can't I fight and kill them, what is my duty as a king ? "...and then the larger philosophical question of birth, death, what is killed and what is not...NO WAY this is in anyway a comparision to Syed Hussain fighting at karbala. Arjuna was never making any "sacrifice".. he was performing his duty... and anyway philosophically there is NO COMPARISION between the Gita and Syed Hussain, its common knowledge world over by people of all religions that the Gita is perhaps the greatest philosophical discourse , and total and complete in dealing with all aspects of existence, action , knowledge,Life, duty, God etc

Okay I see where you were coming from at this. My bad I didnt pick it up.Apologies. I beleive I had already explained the analogy of Hussain and Arjuna in the article. Let me repeat it again. What was Arjuna's quandry? In a nutshell it was about attacking his own relatives and killing them. What was Syed Hussain's quandry? To attack and kill the members of the tribe that his GrandFather had created. Okay so that explains. Now on to you Hari. What do YOU think of Syed Hussain at Qarbala. xxx

[Guest HariSampath]

Okay I see where you were coming from at this. My bad I didnt pick it up.Apologies. I beleive I had already explained the analogy of Hussain and Arjuna in the article. Let me repeat it again. What was Arjuna's quandry? In a nutshell it was about attacking his own relatives and killing them. What was Syed Hussain's quandry? To attack and kill the members of the tribe that his GrandFather had created. Okay so that explains. Now on to you Hari. What do YOU think of Syed Hussain at Qarbala. xxx

I know you made a bad miss in that post... no apologies needed...anyways, I had already compared and contrasted both the situations. If Syed Hussain was fighting to kill members of his grandfather's tribe, what was the reason ? Just religious differences . same way that Osama Bin Laden is against Jews and Christians. Islam accepts Jesus as a genuine prophet and Jesus was a jew. So why is a "true Islam follower" Osama fighting and organising "suicide squads" to kill followers of Christ and jews of Israel ? Basically almost all wars in the middle east were due to religious fanaticism , both Islamic and Christian ( be it the crusades or anything else in ancient Arabic states)..never an issue of larger philosophical thought or a war over righteousness and kingdoms as in the Mahabharata and Ramayana. Given the above , how can it be expected to have Hindus according the same attention or importance to such "battles" in muslim lands , that they do to mahabharata and ramayana ? This is what I had posted earlier...and I had very strongly given my reason why Arjuna cannot be compared to Syed Hussain as you had done in your article ( in fact the very fact you yourself questioned where/how/what, albeit unknowingly, had as much admitted that such a comparision is flawed)

[Guest HariSampath]

An additional thought for you Lurks.... Islam is a religion that is naturally and fundamentally against all things Hindu. In Hinduism, prime importance is given to multiplicity of ways of worship. Idol worship of God as well as worship of God as formless is accepted. Why.. even Atheism is an accepted way of thought in Hinduism. No philosophical thought in the entire known and recorded history of human evolution is as complete and all inclusive in philosophical content and unity in diversity , as is Hinduism. Islam on the contrary is quite rigid, and vehemently against all and sundry who do not accept the Islamic way of thought, life and prayers, particularly those who worship God with a form, as in Idols. The very founding principle of the Islamic invasions of India is rooted in overpowering and destroying anything in India , considered as "unIslamic"...and hence the mass destruction of temples, killings of Hindus, forcible conversions etc. It is pertinent to note that Hindus throughout their history had never everf usurped any land/kingdom and enforced Hinduism anywhere violently or otherwise. Islam and its following had always done it all through History. I don't think that defending one's country where the greatest , all encompassing universal Hindu thought lives and flourishes can be so totally left to a community whose religion is considered higher than their country , and whose historic roots can be traced back to conversions , and whose commitment to our land over and above their religion is not that much as Hindus. Yes, there will be patriotic Muslims who consider India larger than Islam, and there will be scumbag Hindus who sellout the country. But on the whole.. considering the entire pshychological/ideological makeup of this community , such very highly motivated individuals are few and far between at very high levels of defence command and Intelligence services. Also , there is a huge risk of security issues as pertaining to members of the Islamic community. There could well be easily available "options" for enemy interests to get a hook into members of family of such a top ranking defence commander /Intelligence agent...what happens if a daughter or wife or son of such a highly placed official is fallen into other considerations...and the possibilities of an official being held to emotional ransom is high due to attachment. These factors are all very carefully analysed by defence experts, and a considered policy is maintained , even if unwritten, by the Govt of India. Even after operation Blue Star, IB, RAW and CBI had strongly cautioned Indira gandhi against having Sikh personnel for PM protection group, but she did not listen, and see what happened. This is not "racist" attitude, but strong common sense and being abundantly cautious. Even the US Secret service has such measures. Pakistan Prez Pervez Musharaff will NOT have any Non Muslim in his personal protection force..possibilities of hostile interests reaching and controlling such people are way too high. Same is the case with LK Advani....NO WAY will any muslim commando be appointed for proximate security duty, as he is perhaps most strongly threatened by LeT, JeM etc. This analogy is what is considered as policy when appointing very senior and very sensitive officials in defence command and military intelligence. I rest my case.

[Lurker]

I know you made a bad miss in that post... no apologies needed...

It was my oversight. Thanks for understanding.

If Syed Hussain was fighting to kill members of his grandfather's tribe, what was the reason ? Just religious differences .

Not at all. The difference between Syed Hussain and his opponents had very little to do with religious difference. Syed Hussain was the grandson of Prophet Mohammed. Hussain's father(Ali) was married to Prophet Mohammed's daughter(Fatima). After Prophet Muhammed's death Ali was supposed to be the king(as per Shia) while Abu-Bakr became the Caliph. Ali later on became the Caliph(3rd after demise of Muhammed). After Ali's death there was a fight for succession. Many beleived Hussain was the natural leader, as much due to his attributes as also due to the fact that he was the only bloodline remaining of Prophet Muhammed. This succession, or the fight behind it, led to Hussain's killing at Qarbala. His followers call it sacrifice because he died for the rightful causes knowing fully well that he would be killed. Syed Hussain was NOT killed because of Shia-Sunni differences. In fact the difference between Shia and Sunni are not religious anyway. It is just that Shias beleive Ali should have followed Prophet Muhammed as the natural successor. Indeed Shias are also called as Shiite-Ali(party of Ali). xxx

[Lurker]

I rest my case.

You should. Your case is extremely weak. Thus far even though you have posted quite a bit in this thread I am yet to see any concrete evidence of why an Indian Muslim should not have a free-shot at the top of Indian Armed Forces. You have not yet showed me one iteration where Muslim officers have let the country down. Yet if I show you an Abdul Hamid or an Abul Kalaam you shall pass it as exception. You have yet to show me which Muslim Armed Force Officer betrayed India though I can give you names of multitude of Hindus - including a controversial Naval Supremo that have done exactly that. If anything you have shown me that inspite of Indian Constitution giving every citizen equal rights in reality the Hindus basically discriminate against Muslims and not allow them to reach to the top. xxx

[Guest HariSampath]

You should. Your case is extremely weak. Thus far even though you have posted quite a bit in this thread I am yet to see any concrete evidence of why an Indian Muslim should not have a free-shot at the top of Indian Armed Forces. You have not yet showed me one iteration where Muslim officers have let the country down. Yet if I show you an Abdul Hamid or an Abul Kalaam you shall pass it as exception. You have yet to show me which Muslim Armed Force Officer betrayed India though I can give you names of multitude of Hindus - including a controversial Naval Supremo that have done exactly that. If anything you have shown me that inspite of Indian Constitution giving every citizen equal rights in reality the Hindus basically discriminate against Muslims and not allow them to reach to the top. xxx

Ok, lemme explain again. Constitutionally any person of any religion can be appointed to guard a PM as long as he is considered meritorious, but according to special considerations, this CANNOT and WILL NOT be applied ( for instance the case of Indira gandhi and also if Advani were PM etc ). It is just that for certain extremely sensitive and high risk positions, in defence, Intelligence as well as special protection tasks....key positions are NOT given to muslims... see my earlier post for the reason thereof, security issues etc. Eg... in wartime scenario...even if a highly qualified intelligence officer is available and is a muslim, he will NOT BE GIVEN sensitive assignments, because probability of indoctrination , ideological shift, emotional and psychological preparedness in engaging against a predominantly muslim state. This is a reality, and fully accepted as practice too

[Guest HariSampath]

Muslims are altogether excluded from "sensitive" posts such as jobs in the intelligence agencies, especially the external-espionage Research & Analysis Wing, the National Security Guard and other elite protection forces. Their presence in the top national police and paramilitary agencies is nominal.

This is a quote by Praful Bidwai...in countercurrents..2006. He is of course critical of this as well as various findings of the sachar report. But the facts are here..Muslims ARE excluded from key sensitive positions, some top jobs in defence/intelligence etc... as it is considered a security issue

[Lurker]

Ok' date=' lemme explain again. Constitutionally any person of any religion can be appointed to guard a PM as long as he is considered meritorious, but according to special considerations, this CANNOT and WILL NOT be applied ( for instance the case of Indira gandhi and also if Advani were PM etc ). It is just that for certain extremely sensitive and high risk positions, in defence, Intelligence as well as special protection tasks....key positions are NOT given to muslims... [b']see my earlier post for the reason thereof, security issues etc.

What reasons have you given? None. All your reasons are lieing in history. None whatsoever in India as a country circa 1947. Let me refresh your memory. The only mutiny that has happened in Indian Armed Forces was NOT by Muslims. It was by Sikhs following Operation Blue Star. I have mentioned this earlier in one of my post but if you would like to learn more please google Ramgarh Sikh mutiny and you shall get more info. So in modern Indian Sikhs have caused a mutiny. Now help me understand why I should allow Sikhs to be at the top while Muslims dont get that chance? Alternatively give me the names of some mutiny like activities that Muslim soldier/officers have done in India post 1947. xxx

[Lurker]

This is a quote by Praful Bidwai...in countercurrents..2006. He is of course critical of this as well as various findings of the sachar report. But the facts are here..Muslims ARE excluded from key sensitive positions, some top jobs in defence/intelligence etc... as it is considered a security issue

That is the strangest thing. You know that this is illegal, unconstitutional, straight up discrimination against a fellow citizen of India and yet you keep saying this is accepted? Who accepts it and how??? This is simply a case of an overwhelming Hindu population acting like bigots. xxx

[Guest HariSampath]

That is the strangest thing. You know that this is illegal, unconstitutional, straight up discrimination against a fellow citizen of India and yet you keep saying this is accepted? Who accepts it and how??? This is simply a case of an overwhelming Hindu population acting like bigots. xxx

NO. Constitutional rights are NOT the issue here. I repeat *sigh*..again that certain sensitive positions have an automatic candidate profile. If that profile visualises greater risk of operational failure for a particular community , such candidates are avoided. It is not merely accepted, but even has Constitutional sanction and had been upheld by repeated verdicts of the Supreme court that the final decision on appointments to those posts should be approved by the cabinet committee under the Ministry of Home affairs. If there are 3 candidates equally qualified to fly the US President's plane , and if one is a muslim, he will NOT be given the job. If there are 3 equally qualified candidates to be the RAW officer designated for Karachi, and if one is a muslim , he will NOT be given the job. If there are 3 equally qualified candidates for protecting Musharaff and if one is a Hindu, he will NOT be given that job by the ISI. Just goddam common sense

[Guest HariSampath]

Here is a fantastic article by Sudha Ramachandran...Lurks...she is arguing your point only...but read this as this summarises the crux of what we both have been debating. In India, The Wages Of Distrust By Sudha Ramachandran 15 November, 2006 Asia Times Online BANGALORE - A recent media report has pointed out that Muslims have been kept out of some wings of India's intelligence apparatus. While the thin presence of Muslims in jobs and education is well known, their exclusion from government agencies by design is cause for concern. Not only is it a blot on the country's secular and pluralistic credentials but it has implications for India's security. It could be detracting from the quality of intelligence the agencies are gathering. According to a report in leading newsmagazine Outlook, India's external intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing,adheres to an "unwritten code" not to recruit Muslims. Right from its inception in the late 1960s, RAW, which has a 10,000-strong staff, "has avoided recruiting any Muslim officer". This is the case, too, with the National Technical Research Organization, the recently established technical-intelligence wing of RAW. The report points out that Muslims and Sikhs are not deployed to protect India's VIPs, either. The Special Protection Group (SPG) that is in charge of protecting the prime minister avoids posting Muslims and Sikhs as bodyguards. The few Muslims and Sikhs who are in the SPG are deployed on administrative duties. There are no Muslims or Sikhs in the National Security Guard (or Black Cats), an elite counter-terrorism force that is also responsible for VIP protection. While distrust of Muslims is long-standing, suspicion of Sikhs, who constitute less than 2% of India's population, can be traced back to the eruption of the Sikh militancy that raged through the 1980s and was aided by sections of the Sikh diaspora and Pakistan. In October 1984, Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by two of her Sikh guards, Satwant Singh and Beant Singh. The Sikh community came under a cloud and Sikhs were thereafter pulled off the personal security of prime ministers. Sikh militancy has subsided, but Sikhs continue to be excluded from the personal security of the prime minister. Incidentally, India's current prime minister, Manmohan Singh, is himself a Sikh, as is Chief of Army Staff Joginder Jaswant Singh. Yet people from the Sikh community are not trusted to look after the prime minister's security. It was Sikh officers in the police, the intelligence and the armed forces who ultimately defeated the Sikh militancy. There are lessons in that for India as it shrinks from recruiting Muslims. Distrust of Muslims is far deeper and more widespread. They are kept out not just from bodyguard duties of India's top leaders but much more. Muslims constitute 13.4% of India's 1.1-billion-strong population, but their presence in education and employment - both private sector and government - is nowhere near their population share. "From the administration and the police to the judiciary and the private sector, the invisible hands of prejudice, economic and educational inequality seem to have frozen the 'quota' for Muslims at 3-5%," observes Siddharth Varadarajan in The Hindu. "For virtually every socio-economic marker of well-being, the Muslim is well below the national norm - not to speak of the level commensurate with her or his share of the national population - and the evidence suggests these inequalities are not decreasing over time." The thin presence of Muslims in jobs and employment and their abysmal socio-economic status have often been blamed on their community's reluctance to become a part of the Indian mainstream. Muslims don't get jobs because they don't want to get educated, they don't want to work in government, is an argument often heard in India. Muslim clerics and politicians are often accused of keeping the community backward. And there is some truth in this argument. But there is serious prejudice too against Muslims. And this prejudice is responsible for the reluctance of Hindus to rent houses to Muslims, to hire them or to trust them in "sensitive" positions. In the eyes of many Hindus, no Muslim can ever truly belong to India. Muslims are seen as "outsiders", descendents of those who invaded India centuries ago. The partition of the subcontinent in 1947 and the creation of Pakistan out of Muslim-majority areas has added to hostility against Muslims. Muslims in India are often regarded as pro-Pakistan and in recent years have been looked upon with suspicion as possible terrorists. It is this perception that lies behind the reluctance to recruit Muslims into the security forces and the intelligence agencies. It is estimated that the number of Muslims in India's 1.1-million-strong army is only about 29,000. Since 1947, there have been only three Muslim lieutenant-generals and only eight major-generals, out of several hundred, points out Omar Khalidi, author of Khaki and the Ethnic Violence in India. This is the same number as that among Parsis and Jews, who are far smaller minorities in India. "The reported exclusion of Muslims from RAW isn't a surprise," said a retired bureaucrat. "It is an extension of the systematic discrimination that Muslims in India encounter whether it is in education, jobs or accessing bank credit." It appears that like RAW, the Intelligence Bureau (IB) - the agency responsible for domestic intelligence - was once reluctant to recruit Muslims. A change in its outlook came in the early 1990s when it decided to recruit Muslim officers. Today, the 12,000-strong IB has what has been termed "a handful" of Muslim officers. Will RAW go the IB's way and open its doors to Muslims? Some RAW officials remain skeptical about the loyalty of Muslims. "How can they be trusted to represent and protect India's national interests when they are pro-Pakistan or when their loyalty to the community of Muslims the world over is greater than that to the country?" one RAW official asked this correspondent. Other RAW operatives admit that questioning the willingness of Muslims to represent India's interests is unfair. They recognize that Muslims in the diplomatic corps have done a great job in representing the country's interests. They admit too that there are no doubts over the integrity and loyalty of Muslims in the Indian security forces. And they are willing to admit that Muslims in the IB played a big role in fighting the militancy in Kashmir. There is growing awareness within RAW too that it needs Muslim officers not just because that is politically correct but because Muslims will be able to fill important gaps in India's world view. "They might be in a better position to understand the Muslim mind and in gathering and interpreting intelligence from Muslim countries," said an RAW officer. With a major part of India's concerns today focused on the Muslim world, "Muslim officers in RAW would be an asset", he added. The two obstacles in the way of RAW opening its doors to Muslims are the absence of clear direction on the matter from the country's political leadership and the inertia that has gripped the organization, preventing it from changing its old ways. It appears that in 2000, when the government was revamping the security setup after the Kargil conflict, the need for recruiting Muslims came up. According to Outlook, a senior bureaucrat approached the then national security adviser, Brajesh Mishra, with the idea of recruiting Muslims into the organizations that were being set up. Mishra promised to look into it but nothing was done to take the suggestion forward. Officials say a policy rethink on the issue of recruiting Muslims into RAW and deploying them as bodyguards to VIPs is "an enterprise fraught with risk". It requires someone to stick his neck out and make a bold decision. "Since there is a possibility that such a decision could go horribly wrong, nobody wants to take the risk," said a Home Ministry official. Sudha Ramachandran is an independent journalist/researcher based in Bangalore.

[Lurker]

Research and Analysis Wing,adheres to an "unwritten code" not to recruit Muslims. Right from its inception in the late 1960s, RAW, which has a 10,000-strong staff, "has avoided recruiting any Muslim officer". This is the case, too, with the National Technical Research Organization, the recently established technical-intelligence wing of RAW. The report points out that Muslims and Sikhs are not deployed to protect India's VIPs, either. The Special Protection Group (SPG) that is in charge of protecting the prime minister avoids posting Muslims and Sikhs as bodyguards Muslims in India are often regarded as pro-Pakistan and in recent years have been looked upon with suspicion as possible terrorists How can they be trusted to represent and protect India's national interests when they are pro-Pakistan or when their loyalty to the community of Muslims the world over is greater than that to the country?" one RAW official asked this correspondent. They might be in a better position to understand the Muslim mind and in gathering and interpreting intelligence from Muslim countries," said an RAW officer. With a major part of India's concerns today focused on the Muslim world, "Muslim officers in RAW would be an asset", Officials say a policy rethink on the issue of recruiting Muslims into RAW and deploying them as bodyguards to VIPs is "an enterprise fraught with risk". It requires someone to stick his neck out and make a bold decision. "Since there is a possibility that such a decision could go horribly wrong, nobody wants to take the risk," said a Home Ministry official

I have put above all the points you have highlighted Hari. I am sure you are smart enough to realize NONE, and I mean NONE, of them is backed up by any single factual evidence. Please feel free to point me to where the article mentions of any ievidence. The more I look into this the more it scares me as to how insecure Hindus have become? It is NOT about Muslims at all. It is about the issue of mistrust. I find it hilarious that while we entrust Sikhs with the responsibility to serve our country and if needed die for it, we dont trust them enough to guard our PM!! How diabolical is that? Back to my original question though. Can you name me of any unsavory incident(post 1947 India) where Muslim officers have acted against India? Can you name me any high ranking Muslim officers that have betrayed India?? Surely if you are so against it you have to have some reasons? And not reasons buried in the sands of time when you and I were not even born! xxx

[Lurker]

If there are 3 candidates equally qualified to fly the US President's plane , and if one is a muslim, he will NOT be given the job. If there are 3 equally qualified candidates to be the RAW officer designated for Karachi, and if one is a muslim , he will NOT be given the job. If there are 3 equally qualified candidates for protecting Musharaff and if one is a Hindu, he will NOT be given that job by the ISI. Just goddam common sense

Bollocks. Many high ranking US Armed Force Officers are Muslims. The notable one being the Commander to Iraq whose name beats me right now. Will look it up on web. In UK very recently Commodore Amjad Hussain was sworne in as Rear Admiral of Royal Navy. You make the person with best quality as Officer and NOT who was born a Hindu. That to me is goddamn common sense. xxx