Post by and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
Demand for withdrawal of a flawed book on Hindu History published by
PENGUIN
I have read the Demand for withdrawal of a flawed book on Hindu
History published by PENGUIN Petition to Penguin Group USA Penguin
Books India, and I hereby sign the petition:
Name: (required)
Email Address: (required)
Please note: All information you provide on this petition signing form
will be public on the petition signatures page, except your email
address, for which privacy is set here:
Email Address Privacy Option: (choose one) Private
Available to Petition Author
Public
Explanation of Email Address Privacy Options:
- "Private" means your email address is stored in a secure private
location, for signature validation only.
- "Available to Petition Author" means your email address will not be
available to the public, but will be available to the petition author,
as well as being stored in a secure private location for signature
validation.
- "Public" means anyone viewing the signature pages on the Web for
this petition can get your email address and send you email.
View Signatures Without Signing
The Demand for withdrawal of a flawed book on Hindu History published
by PENGUIN Petition to Penguin Group USA Penguin Books India was
created by Sarasvati Research and Education Trust and written by
Srinivasan Kalyanaraman (***@gmail.com). The petition is hosted
here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no
endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice, Inc. or
our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition
Help form.
http://www.petitiononline.com/dharma10/petition-sign.html
Ganesha Demolition – Symbolic Act of Hatred
(http://voi.org/2009030380/vinodkumar/column-vinodkumar/
ganeshademolition–symbolicactofhatred.html)
404: Not Found
Sorry, but the content you requested could not be found
Combating Defamation of Religion
By Vinod Kumar, on 27-03-2009 12:12
Published in : Vinod Kumar, Column - Vinod Kumar
On November 24, 2008 - By a vote of 85 to 50, with 42 abstaining, the
UN General Assembly, Geneva adopted a draft resolutionm [ref -
http://www.unwatch.org/atf/cf/%7B6DEB65DA-BE5B-4CAE-8056-8BF0BEDF4D17%7D/DEFAMATION2008UNGA.PDF
] calling on all countries to alter their legal and constitutional
systems to prevent "defamation of religions," asserting that "Islam is
frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and
terrorism." Among other things, the resolution "urges states to take
actions to prohibit the dissemination ... of racist and xenophobic
ideas" and material that would incite to religious hatred. It also
urges states to adopt laws that would protect against hatred and
discrimination stemming from religious defamation.
The resolution puts Islam and some of the more controversial practices
associated with it beyond censure. The OIC (The Organization of
Islamic Conference) says that Muslims in Western countries have,
especially since 9/11, faced stereotyping, hostility, discriminatory
treatment and the denigration of “the most sacred symbols of Islam.”
The organization cites cases like newspaper cartoons caricaturing
Mohammed, and a Dutch lawmaker’s documentary released earlier this
year, linking the Koran to terrorism.
India, as one of the countries to abstain, said the text addressed the
problem insufficiently from a narrow perspective because it focused on
one religion. Western countries specially the US and France "This is
just the latest shot in an intensifying campaign of UN resolutions
that dangerously seek to import Islamic anti-blasphemy prohibitions
into the discourse of international human rights law," said Hillel
Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, an independent human rights
monitoring group in Geneva. The resolution puts the human rights and
freedom of speech and expression movement that has been the foundation
of progress in the West and thus the world back by several centuries.
It is evident that the resolution was supported or opposed on
emotional and political grounds.
Even if one was to go with the resolution, it fails to address a very
fundamental issue it wants to resolve. What is to be done if a
religion itself defames or insults other religion(s)? What if a
religion itself disseminates “xenophobic ideas” and contains “material
that would incite religious hatred.” while deploring hate speech,
felt strongly that people should be free to express their opinions in
challenging any ideology of hate. Human rights are indivisible and the
right to freedom of expression was at the essence of the right to
thought, conscience and belief.
The resolution is shortsighted and Islam centric and does nothing to
combat defamation of religions per se. Not only it takes human
civilization backwards, it will come to haunt the countries that
supported it. For a healthy and progressive society, all ideologies
should be open for open and constructive discussion.
http://voi.org/2009032799/vinodkumar/column-vinodkumar/combatingdefamationofreligion.html
Jinnah and Two Nation Theory
By Vinod Kumar, on 05-09-2009 23:30
Jaswant Singh by his book, Jinnah - India, Partition, Independence has
become kind of a folk hero in Pakistan and a darling of the
secularattii in India. No doubt, with this book, he has secured his
financial future, if he needed one, as one report from Pakistan says
‘they will be ordering the book by the millions.'
One of the main thrusts of his book is that Jinnah was not the "demon"
he is made out to be in India and that he was a secular Indian
nationalist and did not really want Pakistan. The demand for Pakistan
was just a strategy to seek more concessions and safeguards for the
Muslims in united India. Partition could have been avoided had Nehru
and Patel agreed for a federal decentralized India instead of a
centralized one. He casts Nehru and Patel as the villains for
conceding partition.
Whether partition was a good thing or bad and should one be demonized
or idolized for it depends on what side you are. Let us also for the
moment forget about Jinnah's secular and Indian nationalist
credentials as these are hardly his legacies. Jinnah's legacy is the
State of Pakistan. In this article let us focus on what caused
partition? Who was the real author of Two Nation theory - Hindus and
Muslims are two separate nations.
After his return from England, Jinnah worked ceaselessly and zealously
for the creation of Pakistan. An accomplished lawyer that he was, he
eloquently and very convincingly spelled out why was partition
necessary in his famous Presidential address to Muslim League
Convention at Lahore in March 1940 and in many other speeches,
interviews and writings. He said there never was any common ground
between the Muslims and the Hindus or desire on the part of Muslims to
live as equal with Hindus whom they had ruled for centuries. Hinduism
and Islam are two different and distinct social orders. It is only a
dream that the two can ever evolve a common nationality. "The hero of
one is the foe of the other. There is nothing that binds them
together." Enumerating all the differences between the two, he went on
to say that "to yoke two such nations under a single State must lead
to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be
so built up for the government of such a state." (India's Partition -
Process, Strategy and Mobilization, edited By Mushirul Hasan, Delhi,
1998, pp.56)
Jinnah stressed there was never one India and Hindus and Muslims had
never lived as one unit. History is testimony that last twelve hundred
years have failed to achieve unity and during the ages "India was
always divided into Hindu India and Muslim India. ... The present
artificial unity of India dates back only to British conquest and is
maintained by the British bayonet" -- he went on to say.
Last update : 05-09-2009 15:53
http://voi.org/20090905227/vinodkumar/column-vinodkumar/jinnahandtwonationtheory.html
Prof. Vijay Prashad and Hindu Holocaust Museum
By Vinod Kumar, on 26-09-2009 23:30
Prof. Vijay Prashad in his article Hindu Holocaust (News India Times,
Sept. 25, 2009) about Francois Gautier's fund raiser on August 16,
2009 in New Jersey for a Hindu Holocaust Museum in Pune, India has
made many assertions and statements which have no evidence in
contemporary or even subsequent recorded history. To keep the response
reasonable length let me address a few of the issues covered by him
and let the readers make their own judgment.
Prof. Vijay Prashad in his article Hindu holocaust (News India Times,
Sept. 25, 2009) about Francois Gautier's fund raiser on August 16,
2009 in New Jersey for a Hindu Holocaust Museum in Pune, India has
made many assertions and statements which have no evidence in
contemporary or even subsequent recorded history. To keep the response
reasonable length let me address a few of the issues covered by him
and let the readers make their own judgement.
Prof. Prashad wrote, and I quote the entire paragraph:
"Between Hindus and Muslims there has not been an endless rivalry for
social power. When Islam enters the subcontinent, it does not come in
the saddlebags of the Ghaznis or the Ghouris, but amongst the rumble
of goods brought by traders. Early conversions are not by the sword
but by the merchants . There was killing, but that was as much for
reasons of warfare and plunder as for reasons of God and tradition. An
interested reader might want to look at the distinguished historian
Romila Thapar's superb book "Somnatha: The Many Voices of a
History" (Penguin, 2005). There, Professor Thapar shows us that Mahmud
Ghazni's destruction of the Shiva temple in 1026 was driven not so
much by a fanatical religious belief but because his father,
Subuktigin, needed money to sustain his faltering kingdom in Central
Asia. Now it is certainly true, as historian Mohammed Habib put it,
that there was "wanton destruction of temples that followed in the
wake of the Ghaznavid army."
Actually this paragraph covers the gist of his arguments.
Let us discuss these one by one.
•1. No social rivalry between Hindus and Muslims:
To the contrary there never was any equivalence between the two ever
after the Muslims started invading India. In all Muslim chronicles,
almost without exception, Hindus are referred to as infidels - a
derogatory term in Islam.
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, a very prominent Muslim leader in the nineteenth
century asked Muslims to support British Raj as opposed to free India
where, by default, Hindus being majority would have an upper hand.
For Muslim scholars for Muslims to live under the Hindus was
unacceptable.
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan (the originator of two nation theory) had said in
1888, as quoted by Sir Penderel Moon on page 11 of his tome, 'Divide
and Quit'. India, he said, is a country"inhabited by two different
nations" and there would necessarily be a struggle for power between
them, if the English were to leave India. "Is it possible, he had
asked, "that under these circumstances two nations - the Mohammedan
and Hindu - could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power?
Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer
the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is
to desire the impossible and the inconceivable."
On the issue of Hindu Muslim relations, no body could have put it
better than what Jinnah articulated in his famous Presidential address
to Muslim League conference in Lahore in 1940.
He said there never was any common ground between the Muslims and the
Hindus or desire on the part of Muslims to live as equal with Hindus
whom they had ruled for centuries. Hinduism and Islam are two
different and distinct social orders. It is only a dream that the two
can ever evolve a common nationality. "The hero of one is the foe of
the other. There is nothing that binds them together." Enumerating all
the differences between the two, he went on to say that "to yoke two
such nations under a single State must lead to growing discontent and
final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the
government of such a state." (India's Partition - Process, Strategy
and Mobilization, edited By Mushirul Hasan, Delhi, 1998, pp.56)
Jinnah stressed there was never one India and Hindus and Muslims had
never lived as one unit. History is testimony that last twelve hundred
years have failed to achieve unity and during the ages "India was
always divided into Hindu India and Muslim India. ... The present
artificial unity of India dates back only to British conquest and is
maintained by the British bayonet" -- he went on to say. (ibid. pp.
56)
Even Alberuni, thousand years ago, when there was not much Muslim
presence in India, could see there was no common ground between Hindus
and Muslims. He starts his book by discussing the differences between
the Hindus and the Muslims. He enumerates these differences at length
throughout the book. Warning his readers he wrote "the readers must
bear in mind that the Hindus entirely differ from us in every
respect...... The barriers which separate Muslims and Hindus rest on
different causes." ((Sachau EC, Alebruni's India, New Delhi, 1993, pp.
17 - 26)
Dr. Ambedkar in his books and frequent writings had alluded to
Muslim's macabre hostility against Hindus. He highlighted the fact
that the word 'but' used by Muslims to refer to any idol was a corrupt
form of "Budh" because there were hundreds of statues of Buddha in
Afghanistan and across the Middle East which were the first target of
iconoclast of Islam. That explains the use of the term 'but-shikan' by
Ghazanavi, Ghauri and other invaders. The destruction and pillage of
the famous Buddhist Seminary and University of Nalanda is another
example of the grossness of the wanton damage caused by Muslim
invaders.
Ethnic cleansing of Hindus by Muslims has continued even in recent
history, both in Pakistan and Bangladesh - even in Kashmir. In that
sense there has been a renewal of Hindu Holocaust. In Pakistan the
Hindu /Sikh population has plummeted from 23% in 1947 to less than 2%
today. In Bangladesh, it has dwindled from 35% to 8% during the same
period. During the same period Muslims have multiplied fast in India.
And the shame of Hindus having been ethnically cleansed from Kashmir
Valley, an important part of our bogus secular state, still torments
Hindu hearts!.
In fact, throughout history Islam has always used 'gross savagery' and
open recourse to terrorism as force multipliers e.g. building towers
of the heads of hapless Hindus beheaded by Muslim invaders of which
accounts are there in history books written by Muslim chroniclers.
(Baburnama, Delhi, 1998, pp. 573, 576 - to cite one example) And the
use of terror and savagery continues with renewed vigor even today.
The most morbid example of savagery in recent times was the beheading
by Ilyas Kashmiri (a commander of Pak-sponsored terror group) of an
injured Indian army officer (after capturing him on February 26,
2000). Ilyas Kashmiri went back to Pakistan with the head of the
hapless Indian army officer and presented it to top officers of Pak
army. Gen. Musharraf had given a cash reward of Rs. 1 lakh. Pictures
of Ilyas Kashmiri holding the head of the Indian officer were
published in Pakistani newspapers. Maulana Zahoor Ahmed Alvi of Jamia
Muhammadia, Islamabad, even issued a fatwa supporting slitting the
throats of Indian army officers in a similar manner [Source: News
item, 'Musharraf rewarded militant who killed Indian', (Indian Express
New Delhi, September 21, 2009, page 4).
Can Prof. Vijay Prashad deny these irrefutable facts?
•2. Islam came with Muslim traders:
Yes, in India there were traders from Arabia long before Islam was
born. These traders by virtue of their being Arabs, became Muslims
when Arabia became Islamic in the seventh century. Thus, one can say
Islam came to India with the traders. Yes, during the trading period,
there was no animosity against the Muslims or Islam. When did this
animosity begin? It was discussed by Alberuni a thousand years ago in
his famous ‘Indica' which we shall cover later. Not that there was any
resistance against but there were no conversions to Islam among the
general population to speak of. Initially Arabs, and later on Muslim,
traders married local women. Even Arab records show that India (read
Hindu) kings gave Muslims land to build their mosques and preach their
new religion. However, it might be mentioned that there is no evidence
of reciprocity of giving lands to Hindus or other religions in Arabia
after the birth of Islam. To the contrary, Prophet Muhammad's one of
the last three wishes/instructions to Muslims was to "expel all pagans
from the Arabian Peninsula." (Sahih Bukhari, New Delhi, vol. 4, p.
260, Chapter H 393)
What caused the animosity between Hindus and Muslims?
In the very first chapter of his book, Indica, Alberuni discusses the
differences between Hindus and Muslims, as written above. Alberuni
observes some of the reasons of Hindus' repugnance of Muslims are
complete banishment of Buddhists from countries, from Khurasan,
Persis, Irak, Mosul and Syria, first by Zoroastrians and then by
Islam. And then Muhammad ibn Kasim entered India proper, conquered the
cities of Bahmanwa and Multan and went as far as Kannauj - "all these
events planted a deeply rooted hatred in their hearts." (Sachau EC,
Alebruni's India, New Delhi, 1993, pp. 20-21)
Then he talks of Mahmud Ghaznavi: Sabuktagin weakened the borders of
India and afterwards his son Mahmud marched into India during a period
of thirty years and more. Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of
India and performed those wonderful exploits (emphasis mine), by which
the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and
like a tale of old in the mouth of the people." Alberuni says "their
scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion
towards all Muslims." (ibid, pp. 22)
These are not even the tips of the proverbial iceberg, to understand
what was done to Hindu by Muslim invaders and then rulers. One has to
read the entire history recorded by the Muslim invaders and rulers and
other Muslim chroniclers to understand its full impact. After each
invasion, the survivors were offered conversion to Islam or death and
many converted. If circumstances allowed, many converted back to their
original faith. All through Muslim rule starting from bin Kasim, with
a few exceptions, Jiziya was imposed on non-Muslim subjects the burden
of which fell the heaviest on the poor. This, at times, led to mass
conversions of the entire castes. Islam might have come with the
traders but it did not result in any conversions to Islam. It were the
invasions and subsequent Muslim rule which did.
Politically motivated opinions that have no basis in recorded history
or wishful thinking that reflect how the things should have been, in
their flight of fancy imagination, is not history. It is, at best,
sheer fiction. Sadly, Prof. Vijay Prashad's characterization of Hindu
Muslim relations fall in this category. History is what actually
happened; fiction has no place in it.
•3. Reasons for temple demolition:
Prof. Prashad quotes Professor Thapar showing us that Mahmud Ghazni's
destruction of the Shiva temple in 1026 was driven not so much by a
fanatical religious belief but because his father, Subuktigin, needed
money to sustain his faltering kingdom in Central Asia.
It is unimaginable that Sabuktagin would have a kingdom in Central
Asia in 1926 after he died at Toormooz on his way to Ghizny from Balkh
in Shaban AH 387 (August AD 997).
In history of Islam Mahmud enjoys a very high position. He was given
the titles of Ameen-ul-Millat, defender of the faith and Yameen-ud-
Daulat, the right hand of the state by the Caliph of Baghdad - the
titles which had so far not been bestowed on any prince far or near,
notwithstanding their intense desire to receive such an honor. (Tarikh
Yamini, The History of India as Told by its own historians, Vol. 2,
New Delhi, 1996, pp. 24)
The plunders of Mahmud are legendary. When he displayed his loot from
India, he was declared "the richest monarch ever in history".
It is often said he was interested only in plunder and he was not much
of a religious person. Neither his record nor his Muslim chroniclers
agree with this characterization. From all contemporary records the
only inference one can draw is that he was a zealot Muslim and is so
regarded by Muslim scholars. As accepted even by Prof. Thapar and
quoted by Prof. Prashad that he plundered Somnath temple - but
actually the plunder and destruction of Somnath temple was of
relatively small scale in relation to other temples and places he
plundered and destroyed.
The case in point is the temple at Mathura. Mahmud was enchanted by
the grandeur of this temple. Utbi, secretary of Mahmud, in his Tarikh
Yamini described it as:
"The Sultan next directed his attacks against the sacred city of
Mathura. The city was surrounded by a massive stone wall, in which
were two lofty gates opening on to the river. There were magnificent
temples all over the city and the largest of them all stood in the
center of it. The Sultan was very much struck by its grandeur. In his
estimate it cost not less than 100,000,000 red dinars, and even the
most skillful of masons must have taken 200 years to complete it.
Among the large number of idols in the temples, five were made of pure
gold, the eyes of one of them were laid with two rubies worth 100,000
dinars, and another had a sapphire of a very heavy weight. All these
five idols yielded gold weighing 98,300 mishkals. The idols made of
silver numbered 200....... He seized all the gold and silver idols
and ordered his soldiers to burn all the temples to the ground. The
idols in them were deliberately broken into pieces. The city was
pillaged for 20 days, and a large number of buildings were reduced to
ashes." (Tarikh Yamini, The History of India as Told by its own
historians, vol 2, New Delhi, 1996, pp. 44)
Mahmud Ghaznavi invaded India at least sixteen times and each time he
left a trail of tears, human suffering and devastation. The tale of
his invasions as recorded by his secretary Utbi is blood curdling.
This is how Utbi describes one scene and this is not, by any means,
an isolated example:
"Many infidels were consequently slain or taken prisoner in this
sudden attack, and the Muslamans paid no regard to the booty till they
had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and
worshippers of sun and fire. The friends of God searched the bodies of
the slain for three whole days, in order to obtain booty." (ibid. pp.
49) The search for booty was secondary to killing.
Another place Utbi writes: "The blood of the infidels flowed so
copiously, that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its
purity, and people were unable to drink it." (ibid. pp. 40)
I can understand Mahmud's penchant for wealth. Many people have
insatiable thirst for wealth. Prof. Prashad might ask himself what
would drive a man to reduce to ashes such a marvelous structure and
break the idols to pieces if he was only interested in wealth? And
killing on such a large scale and so brutally?
Mahmud not only plundered and destroyed the Somnath temple, he ordered
the upper part of the idol to be broken and the remainder to be
transported to his residence, Ghazni, with all its trappings of gold,
jewels, and embroidered garments. Part of it has been thrown into the
hippodrome of the town, together with the Chakrasvamin, an idol of
bronze, that had been brought from Thanesar. Another part of the idol
from Somnath lies before the door of the mosque of Ghaznin, on which
people rub their feet to clean them from dirt and wet." (Sachau EC,
Alebruni's India, New Delhi, 1993, part II, pp. 103)
One would ask Prof. Thapar if the purpose of Mahmud's plunder of
Somnath was "driven not so much by a fanatical religious belief but
because his father, Subuktigin, needed money to sustain his faltering
kingdom in Central Asia" why would he spend it in transporting broken
pieces all the way from Somnath to Ghazni?
Prof. Prashad quotes Prof. Habib who admits that there was "wanton
destruction of temples that followed in the wake of the Ghaznavid
army." I am not surprised by it. Muslims historians are more open and
honest about the Muslim rule in India and its depredations than their
Hindu compatriots - the very Hindus who were at the receiving end for
centuries. I wonder if Stockholm syndrome has anything to do with it!
Coming back to our subject, temple destruction did not end with Mahmud
- it was just the beginning. These continued all the way till
Aurangzeb - the last great Mughal emperor. We will not go into those
details in this article.
Even today, the demolition of Bamiyan Buddha statues is a stark
reminder of what drove Muslim invaders of India to demolish Hindu
temples? There was no wealth hidden in Bamiyan Buddhas that the world
knows of.
In this so far we have covered only a very small part of Prof.
Prashad's article and not even scratched the surface of what Hindus
had gone through Islamic rule. Will Durant has called the Muslim
conquest of India the bloodiest story in history. The extent of
destruction of Hindu temples and massacres is beyond all human
imagination and a museum to their memory would be a just reminder to
all humanity of what might happen if one is not prepared to learn the
lessons from the past.
In the beginning of the article, Prof. Prashad wrote: "They claim that
over the past thousand years, millions of Hindus were killed, with the
intention to wipe Hindus off the map." Actually this is a very mild
statement and does not even come close to state the facts. According
to some estimates Hindus killed by Muslims over the centuries is about
80 million and the number of temples demolished into tens of
thousands. Timur Lang's massacre of 100,000 helpless Hindu prisoners
in one day by hands has no parallel in world history. (Malfuzat-e-
Timuri, History of India as told by its own historians, vol. III,
Delhi, 1996, pp. 436)
•4. Hindu Holocaust Museum:
Prof. Prashad also wrote: "The idea of the Hindu Holocaust casts the
Hindu as history's victim, who should now become history's aggressor
to avenge the past." It is evident that Prof. Prashad is drawing his
own conclusions without any evidence or basis. Making a museum to
portray the atrocities suffered by the Hindus in the past does not
imply they want to become "history's aggressors to avenge the past."
Jews have built Jewish Holocaust museums, are they avenging the past?
There are Black history museums all over the US. This does not mean
that these are meant to enslave the Whites "to avenge the past". A
museum is to remind the future generations of what happened - to
reflect the good and the bad; the pride and the shame. All countries
have museums. Actually it would have been only fair that such an idea
had come from the Muslims to show their disapproval of what their
ancestors had done to humanity for the sake of Islam. But that did not
happen and is not likely to happen either. If not the Muslims, then
this idea of Hindu Holocaust Museum should have come from liberal
progressive elite of independent India.
It is not surprising that Francois Gautier who is leading the movement
for a Hindu Holocaust museum is a Frenchman. He is the living legacy
of French progressive liberalism that waged the struggle against
religious fanaticism in the eighteenth century. Instead of making
light of Gautier's work, the liberal progressive elite worldwide
should join forces with him in exposing the depredations caused by
religious fanatics in India. Let India be the starting point and then
continue work elsewhere.
Prof. Prashad would do a great service if instead of spending his
valuable time and energy in criticizing Francois Gautier, he was
investigating what drove some people, in today's day and age, to
demolish two thousand years old Bamiyan Buddhas - a work of art and
human endeavor.
A sad reminder that the days of demolition of infidel idols are not
over yet.
Copyright: Vinod Kumar
September 25, 2009
http://voi.org/20090926244/vinodkumar/column-vinodkumar/prof.vijayprashadandhinduholocaustmuseum.html
Sri Sri and Jihad
The Times of India recently conducted a discussion between Islamic
scholar and peace activist Maulana Wahiduddin Khan and Hindu spiritual
leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on the issue of Jihad in the Quran and
Bhagvadgita. The discussion was moderated by Narayani Ganesh, a well
known Columnist.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/spirituality/self-help/War-peace-its-in-the-mind/articleshow/5059228.cms
Right at the beginning Maulana Wahiduddin started with "Let's discuss
the misunderstanding of the term jihad. Jihad is an Arabic word that
has neither a mysterious meaning nor relation to any sacred duty.
Jihad is a simple word; it means to struggle, to strive. Jihad is to
achieve a positive goal in life through peaceful means."
"The Prophet of Islam has said: "Do jihad against your own desires."
That is, doing jihad against yourself. So jihad means to control your
desires. Jihad is to discipline your own behaviour. The Qur'an says:
"Do jihad with the help of the Qur'an" (25:52). The Qur'an is a book
of ideology; it is not a weapon. So doing jihad with the help of the
Qur'an means to try to achieve one's goals through an ideological
struggle." He continued.
Before we accept the Mualana's definition of jihad let us look at the
subject of jihad from the basic scriptures of Islam and what other
Islamic scholars and commentators have said on the subject in some
details. One or two sentences here and there do not do justice to this
important topic.
Jihad has been going on in the world ever since Islam was born in the
seventh century but its latest manifestation has been, among other
places, most notably in Palestine, Chechnya, and Kashmir. Even, in
February 1998, when World Islamic Front issued a fatwa and a call for
Jihad to "every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be
rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and
plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it", it did not
arouse much interest in the general public. It took direct assault on
9/11 on the fundamental symbols of what America stands for that it
created some curiosity. Today, Jihad is, no doubt, one of the most
discussed terms in the world.
What is Jihad? What drives a man to commit such horrendous acts
against humanity? What motivates Islamic terrorists? Why do they
operate under the name of Jihad?
Dr. Eyad Sarraj, a Palestinian psychiatrist answers (Newsweek, April
8, 2002)
"This is the influence of the Koran, the most potent and powerful book
for the past 14 centuries. God promised Muslims who sacrificed for
Islam that they would not die. They will live on in paradise. Muslims
hold to the promise literally."
How valid is this assertion?
What is Jihad?
View of traditionalists:
Dictionary of Islam defines jihad as "a religious war with those who
are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent
religious duty, established in the Quran and in the Traditions as a
divine institution, enjoined specially for the purpose advancing Islam
and repelling evils from Muslims."[i]
In an introductory note to an article "Jihad in the Qur'an and
Sunnah" by Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, ex-Chief Justice
of Saudi Arabia and of the Sacred Mosque of Mecca, Abdul Malik
Mujahid, General Manager of Maktaba Dar-us-Salam, Saudi Arabia on the
website (www.islamworld.net) writes:
"Jihad is regarded as the best thing, one can offer voluntarily. It
is superior to non‑obligatory prayers, fasting, Zakat, Umra and Hajj
as mentioned in the Qur'an and the Ahadith of the Prophet(pbuh). The
benefits of Jihad are of great extent and large in scope, while its
effects are far-reaching and wide-spreading as regards Islam and the
Muslims."
Sheikh Abdullah, ex-Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia defines Jihad as:
"Praise be to Allah swt Who has ordained Al-Jihad (the holy fighting
in Allah's Cause):
1. With the heart (intentions or feelings),
2. With the hand (weapons, etc.),
3. With the tongue (speeches, etc., in the Cause of Allah)
Allah has rewarded the one who performs it with lofty dwellings in the
Gardens (of Paradise)." [ii]
Other contrary Views
Many non-Muslim modernists, as Maulana Wahiduddin also said in this
discussion, in the West deny that it has anything to do with
violence.
Many academic Muslims also dissociate Jihad with "Holy War". "In its
primary sense it is an inner thing, within self, to rid it from
debased actions or inclinations, and exercise constancy and
perseverance in achieving a higher moral standard" - they claim.
"Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions and
certainly not against Christians and Jews as some media and political
circles want it to be perceived. Islam does not fight other religions"
- they emphasize.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based group,
asserts that jihad "does not mean 'holy war.'" Instead, jihad is "a
central and broad Islamic concept that includes the struggle to
improve the quality of life in society, struggle in the battlefield
for self-defense . . . or fighting against tyranny or oppression."
CAIR even denies that Islam includes any concept of a "holy war."
Many other who go under the banner of modernists hold similar views on
the nature of jihad.
How is one to conclude what Jihad really means in Islam?
Ironclad definition of anything to do with Islam and its practical
manifestations can only be derived from what the basic scriptures of
Islam have to say on any particular issue.
What are the basic scriptures of Islam and why are they so important?
The single most basic scripture of Islam is indeed the Qur'an. The
next after the Qur'an are the traditions - the Sunnah -- of the
Prophet -- also known as Ahadith. The Qur'an is compilation of the
Revelations from Allah to Prophet Muhammad and the Sunnah is what
Prophet Muhammad did or said. Of the traditions, the ones compiled by
Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim are the most authentic.
Authenticity of Imam Bukhari's work can be judged from the fact that
he is reported to have collected over 300,000 Hadiths -- traditions of
the Prophet -- but "chose only approximately 7275 of which there is
no doubt about their authenticity." [iii] Each Hadith comes with its
line of transmission that leads directly to Prophet Muhammad or his
companions.
Why are the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet so important to
Muslims? Instead of giving my personal opinion let me say what Rafiq
Zakaria, an eminent Islamic scholar and also known as modernist
progressive secular Muslim has to say on this.
"To Muslims, the Quran is the creation of god. However, it is equally
important to remember that there could have been no Quran without
Muhammad. He is not only its transmitter but also the embodiment of
its teachings... Muhammad and the Quran are inextricably
intertwined." [iv]
"The Quran is, therefore, regarded by Muslims as immutable and
unchangeable, not metaphorically but literally. This is a matter of
faith for them, and reason can never deflect them from it." [v]
(Italics mine) He went on to say.
After enumerating the five pillars of Islam, he echos the sentiments
expressed above in another book and goes on to observe "it (the Quran)
contains guidelines a Muslim must follow." [vi]
Maulana Mawdudi, a great Islamic scholar and thinker expresses similar
views. Islam stands for complete faith in the prophet's teachings. It
stands for complete obedience to the system of life shown to us by the
prophet and any who ignores the medium of the prophet and claims to
follow God directly is not a Muslim. [vii]
Maulana Wahiduddin has also expressed similar opinions.
Human reason or direct approach to God without the medium of the
prophet makes one sinner, if not apostate from Islam. No freedom of
slightest deviation is allowed. One has to follow the teachings of the
Quran and of the Prophet.
If we want to understand why the Muslims carry out jihad, we have to
understand what the Quran and the Sunnah have to say on this topic.
The opinions of Islamic scholars and other commentators are not valid
if they are not in conformity with the above.
What do the Quran and the Sunnah have to say on the subject of Jihad?
There is no chapter devoted exclusively to the subject of jihad in the
Quran. The Ayats pertaining to jihad are spread throughout the Quran.
If one were to sort them out and present them in a concise manner, one
would, in all likelihood, be accused of quoting them out of context.
But in each of the authentic Hadis - the Sunnah of the prophet --
there is a section dealing with the practice of jihad. So let us turn
our attention to the Sunnah. On close scrutiny of the Sunnah as
compiled in Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, apart from the
traditions of the prophet, frequent reference is made to the Quran. So
what is recorded in these two books is both, the Sunnah of the Prophet
as well as the revelations from God. Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim have
facilitated our work in informing us, in a concise form, what the
concept of jihad in Islam is?
Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan of Islamic University, Medina Al- Munawwara,
Saudi Arabia, the translator of Sahih Al-Bukhari, in the glossary of
Arabic words translates Jihad as "Holy fighting in the cause of Allah
or any other kind of effort to make Allah's word (Islam) superior
which is regarded as one of the principles of Islam." [viii]
Jihad defined:
Let us first try to find out what is Jihad? We don't have to too far.
The section on Jihad starts with invocation to Allah and Chapter I
opens quoting verses 9:111-112 of the Quran:
"Verily
Allah has purchased of the believers
Their lives and their properties;
For theirs (in return)
Is Paradise. They fight in His cause, so they
Kill (others) and are killed
It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him."[ix]
Allah has made a binding promise with His believers to kill in His
cause and if they are killed they will get Paradise in return.
And again it repeats in chapter 2 "the best among the people is that
believer who strives his utmost in Allah's cause with both his life
and property and goes on to quote verses 61:10,11,12 . It says "it
(fighting in Allah's cause) is a bargain that will save you from a
grievous punishment..... He will forgive you, your sins and admit you
into Gardens beneath which rivers flow, and to beautiful Mansions in
gardens of Eternity." And calls it "The supreme achievement." [x]
Indeed the promise of Gardens with Rivers and Mansions must have
sounded very alluring in the harsh desert climate of Arabia.
Evidently, it does even today.
The superiority of Jihad:
"A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the forenoon is
better than the world and whatever is in it." Says Hadis 50 in chapter
5. [xi]
And "a place as small as a bow in Paradise is better than all that on
which the sun rises and sets (i.e. all the world)." And continues,
repeating, "A single endeavour in Allah's Cause is better than all
that on which the sun rises and sets." [xii]
The superiority of martyrdom is so great that "nobody would wish to
come back even if he were given the whole world and whatever in it,
except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would
like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah's
cause.)" [xiii]
And what is there in Paradise? Houris. "And if a houri from paradise
appeared to the people of the earth, she would fill the space between
Heaven and the Earth with light and pleasant scent and her head cover
is better than the world and whatever is in it." [xiv] Who would not
like to die to be in company of such houris?
Obligations of a Believer to Jihad
What are the obligations of a Muslim of a general call to arms and
what sort of Jihad and intentions are compulsory? Most people don't
like to fight and Muslims are no exception to it. But what are they to
do when Allah says:
"March forth, whether you are light (young, healthy and wealthy) or
heavy (ill, old and poor)
And strive with your wealth and your lives
In the way of Allah; that is better for you
If you but knew. Had it been a near gain (booty in front of them)
And an easy journey they would have followed you,
But the distance (Tabuk expedition) was long for them and they would
Swear by Allah (saying)
"If we only could, we would have surely have come out with you."
Allah reprimands:
"They destroy their own souls, and Allah knows
That they are liars." (9:41-42) [xv]
Allah continues His reprimand:
"O you who believe! What is the matter with you that when you are
asked to march forth in the Way of Allah, (i.e. Jihad), you cling
heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world
rather than the hereafter? .... (the verse). If you march not forth,
He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by
another people and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allah is Able to do
all things." (9:38-39) [xvi]
Is Jihad obligatory:
This is best explained by Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid:
"So at first "the fighting" was forbidden, then it was permitted and
after that it was made obligatory- ( 1 ) against them who start "the
fighting" against you (Muslims)... (2) and against all those who
worship others along with Allah... as mentioned in SurahAI‑BaqaraSl
(II), Al‑lmran (III) and Baraat (IX)... and other Suras (Chapters of
the Qur'an).
Allah made "the fighting' (Jihad) obligatory for the Muslims and gave
importance to the subject‑matter of Jihad in all the Suras (Chapters
of the Qur'an) which were revealed (at Medina) as in Allah's
Statement:
March forth whether you are light (being healthy, young and wealthy)
or heavy (being ill, old and poor), strive hard with your wealth and
your lives in the Cause of Allah. This is better for you if you but
knew. (V.9:41). [xvii]
Rewards of Jihad:
Where would one killed in Jihad go? The Muslim killed in Jihad would
go to Paradise and "their's (i.e. those of the Pagan's) will go to
Hell Fire. [xviii]
What are the special benefits of fighting in Allah's cause?
Whoever believes in Allah and His Messenger and lives the life of a
good Muslim will rightfully go to Paradise, no matter if he fights in
Allah's cause or not. But there is a special place for those who do.
Paradise has hundred grades which Allah has reserved for Mujahidin.
The distance between each grade is like the distance between the
Heaven and the Earth. [xix]
And what will those who fight in Allah's cause get in Paradise?
Bat Ye'Or well known writer on Islam notes "the ideology of jihad was
formulated by Muslim jurists and scholars, including such luminaries
as Averroes and Ibn Khaldun, from the 8th century onward. For example,
Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) stated, "..the holy war is a religious duty,
because of the universality of the Muslim mission and the obligation
to convert everyone to Islam either by persuasion or by force...".
Modernists views refuted:
As noted above, Council of American Islamic Relations asserts that
Jihad is "struggle in the battlefield for self-defense . . . or
fighting against tyranny or oppression" But Sahih Muslim, one of two
most authentic traditions does not agree with it.
Self defense or oppression has nothing to do with the concept of
Jihad. It quotes Prophet Muhammad saying:
"I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to
the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am
the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when
they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my
behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest
with Allah."[xx]
Quoting Koran (9:39) "If you march not forth, I will punish you with a
painful torment and will replace you by another people and you cannot
harm Me at all, and Allah is able to do all things.", Sheikh Abdullah
bin Muhammad bin Hamid of Sacred Mosque of Mecca (Saudi Arabia) writes
"Allah disapproved of those who abandoned Jihad (i.e. they did not go
for Jihad) and attributed to them hypocrisy and disease in their
hearts, and threatened (all) those who remain behind from Jihad and
sit at home with horrible punishment. He (Allah) accused them with the
most ugly descriptions, rebuked them for their cowardice and spoke
against them (about their weakness and their remaining behind).[xxi]
Had Jihad been just "striving" and "an inner thing, within self, to
rid it from debased actions or inclinations" where was the need to
"march forth"? Why would Allah accuse those who did not "march forth"
of "cowardice", and "hypocrisy and disease in their hearts"?
To scholars of Islam the message of the Koran and Ahadith is clear.
It is true that not every Muslim is engaged in Jihad. It is true not
only today; it was true during the time of Prophet Muhammad also.
Those who did not were called hypocrites and their fidelity to Islam
was in question.
It is evident from the above that Maulana Wahiduddin's contention that
Jihad has "no relation to any sacred duty" and "it means to struggle,
to strive. Jihad is to achieve a positive goal in life through
peaceful means" have no foundation in Islamic scriptures.
And if Jihad, indeed, is "mental struggle against passion or internal
struggle" - it would be welcome, I am sure, by all non-Muslims. What
a non-Muslim is primarily interested in is Jihad that affects his (non-
Muslim's) survival. However, there is no evidence in the core
scriptures of Islam that Jihad is an internal struggle within the
self.
In support of his contention, the Maulana quoted verse 25:52 saying:
"The Quran says: ‘Do jihad with the help of the Quran'. As is the
common theme of the Quran ‘to fight with the unbelievers', the verse
quoted by the Maulana does not disappoint. It also says: "So do not
follow the unbelievers, and strive against them a mighty striving with
it." ‘It' might mean the Quran - the word Jihad does not occur in any
of the three translations I checked but by defining jihad as peaceful
struggle the Maulana has completely fooled a general unbeliever into
believing that the Quran asks his followers to fight peacefully.
In the whole discussion Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and the moderator, both
cut a sorry figure. The Maulana took them for an easy ride and neither
challenged the Maulana and presented the true meaning of jihad. It is
evident that Sri Sri Ravi Shankar has absolutely no knowledge of Islam
or even of its basics
The whole exercise of equating the Gita and the Quran is disingenuous.
The Gita and the Hinduism at large have no concept of jihad in the
Quranic sense. The Kurukshetra war is not about jihad but about
injustice which as the Maulana says does not exist in Islam - (In
Islam, there is no war against injustice). In Islam, whatever Allah
decrees is justice when it says: "God gives abundantly to whom He will
and sparingly to whom it pleases." (13:26) In the Gita the basic
theme is fight for righteousness - not for any god or religion or an
individual while to the contrary the basic theme in the Quran is to
fight for Allah against those who deny His Revelations.
In Kurukshatra war Sri Krishna did not exhort Arjuna to fight because
Sri Krishna wanted it or for a God - or for even Arjuna's sake but for
the justice. Against the injustice that had been done to the
Pandavas. This step was taken after all other means to bring justice
have been explored and exhausted.
Yes, like any other religious ideology, Islam also would like to
improve the life of its followers, in its own way but that is nowhere
called what is known as Jihad.
i Warraq, ibn. Why I am not a Muslim. New York, 1995, pp.12
ii Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 1, pp. xxiv
iii Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 1, pp.xvii
iv Zakaria, Rafiq, Muhammad and the Quran, Penguin Books, New York,
1991, pp. 3
v Zakaria, Rafiq, Muhammad and the Quran, Penguin Books, New York,
1991, pp. 4
vi Zakaria, Rafiq, The Struggle within Islam, Penguin Books, New
York, 1988, pp. 304
vii Mawdudi, Abul A'la, Towards understanding Islam, Islamic Circle
of North America, Montreal, 1986, pp. 61 (First published in Urdu in
India in 1932)
viii Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 1, pp. lxxiv
ix Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol.4, pp. 34
x Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 36-37
xi Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 41
xii Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp 41
xiii Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 42
xiv Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 42
xv Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 58-59
xvi Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 59
xvii Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 1, pp. xxvi
xviii Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 55
xix Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 40
xx Sahih Muslim, Translated by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, New Delhi, 1994,
vol. 1, pp.17
xxi Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp.xxx-xxxi
© Copyright
[i] Warraq, ibn. Why I am not a Muslim. New York, 1995, pp.12
[ii] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 1, pp. xxiv
[iii] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 1, pp.xvii
[iv] Zakaria, Rafiq, Muhammad and the Quran, Penguin Books, New York,
1991, pp. 3
[v] Zakaria, Rafiq, Muhammad and the Quran, Penguin Books, New York,
1991, pp. 4
[vi] Zakaria, Rafiq, The Struggle within Islam, Penguin Books, New
York, 1988, pp. 304
[vii] Mawdudi, Abul A'la, Towards understanding Islam, Islamic Circle
of North America, Montreal, 1986, pp. 61 (First published in Urdu in
India in 1932)
[viii] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 1, pp. lxxiv
[ix] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol.4, pp. 34
[x] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 36-37
[xi] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 41
[xii] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp 41
[xiii] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 42
[xiv] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 42
[xv] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 58-59
[xvi] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 59
[xvii] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 1, pp. xxvi
[xviii] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan,
New Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 55
[xix] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 40
[xx] Sahih Muslim, Translated by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, New Delhi,
1994, vol. 1, pp.17
[xxi] Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan, New
Delhi, 1984, vol. 4, pp.xxx-xxxi
http://voi.org/20091003249/vinodkumar/column-vinodkumar/whatisjihad.html
How Javed Anand’s Ancestors Became Muslims
By Vinod Kumar, on 08-11-2009 12:56
Berating Rashtriya Swyamsevak Sangh, its Chief Mohan Bhagwat and then
Hinduism, Javed Anand in RSS, Here I Come (Asian Age, Oct 14, 2009)
Loading Image...
wrote:
"Even otherwise, I have no difficulty in accepting the obvious---my
Hindu past---for I doubt if my forefathers were Sikhs , Jains or
Buddhists. The former are easily discounted for they arrived too late
on the scene. Jains? No way , they are not interested in Mughlai
cousin . As far Buddhists, I am unable to see what possible incentive
there was for them to abandon their faith."
"But converting from Hinduism is conceivable . I have been told since
childhood that we are Saddiquis. That's big if you are talking
hierachy ---being part of the extended parivar of none else than the
closest companion of Prophet Mohammed and the first Caliph of Islam
Abu Bakr. But this Arabisation drive Bhagwat Ji I suspect is quite
like Sansakritisation ---in search of respectability, status and
imagination at work. It's quite likely that my forefathers were Hindus
and "untouchable".
"Imagine Islam's appeal to one who is constantly told he is too
"impure" to be allowed entry inside a temple . Imagine the doors of a
mosque being flung open to him with invite--- Come, stand shoulder-to-
shoulder with the rest of us. No hierarchy here, no caste, no race,
"Sab ka Malik ek" . Who says you are too impure to enter a holy space
or hold a holy text ? Here's the Quran . Its your as much as anyone
else's Touch it, hold it, read it, kiss it, store it in your heart and
mind."
Last update : 08-11-2009 13:06
RSS and Mohan Bhagwat are just the props. Javed Anand's real target is
Hinduism.
"Imagine , Bhagwatji, does this not sound like celestial music to the
outcast such as my forefathers quite possibly were." Mr. Javed Anand
went on to write.
But evidently this did not sound like ‘celestial music to the
"outcast" brothers of the ancestors of Javed Anand otherwise after
fourteen hundred years of Islam's presence in India, with roughly half
of it as its rulers, and all the lollipops thrown at them with
accompanying privileges of belonging to the community of the rulers,
the problem of "outcasts" in Hinduism would not have existed. The fact
is that despite the open arms of Islam as Javed Anand claims, the
"outcasts" of Hinduism did not opt for Islam. Even in Pakistan where
even today every non-Muslim is treated as second class citizen and the
"outcast" Hindus even worse, the minuscule minority community of
"outcast" Hindus have not been attracted by this "celestial" music of
Islam. There are other reasons why the speculative "outcast" ancestors
of Javed Anand became Muslims.
Let us briefly review what might have been the reasons of Javed
Anand's ancestors conversion to Islam - "outcasts" or not.
•1. Early history:
Islam came to India with the Arab traders when Arabia was converted to
Islam. The new converts to Islam - who have been coming to India as
Arabs since long before Islam was born - were free to practice their
new religion. They were given land grants to build their mosques and
freedom to preach and convert from the local population while the
Prophet of Islam had wished to expel all pagans from the Arabian
peninsula. (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 4) There is no evidence that the
"celestial music" of Islam attracted many, if any, converts from the
"outcasts" of Hindu society even though there was no restrictions upon
their leaving the Hindu fold. Even in Arabia the conversion was not
all that an easy matter. Biographies of Prophet Muhammad and the
Koranic verses are a testimony to it. Those who did not convert were
given the status of dhimmies and a special tax named jiziya was
levied upon them. Islam's appeal in Arabia even after conversion must
not have been all that great so that the Prophet of Islam made leaving
Islam a crime punishable with death. Wonder why would anyone ever want
to leave the "celestial" music of Islam?
•2. Medieval History:
2a. Muslim Invaders: Every Muslim invader starting with bin Kasim who
came to India demolished and plundered Hindu temples. Killed all the
males and enslaved women and children - at times carried them off by
the hundreds of thousands to Arabia and Central Asian countries to be
sold off as slaves. At one point, there were so many Hindu slaves in
Ghazni that it looked like an Indian city. Men of honor in India were
working as domestic help in Afghanistan and beyond. Lakhs perished in
what is now - for good reason - called Hindukush. Those who converted
to Islam were spared. Desire to live as decent human being is a common
human weakness - no wonder many converted to Islam just to survive -
not necessarily the "outcasts" of Hindu society; most of them were the
elite of the Hindu society. When the invaders went back, those who
converted reverted back to the practice of Hinduism. But repeated
invasions and even harder treatment meted out to those who
reconverted, they found it expedient to remain Muslims in name even
though for long times they continued their infidel Hindu ways. Some
still do even after centuries of conversion. Thus it was found
necessary to start Tabligh movement to rid the practice of "evil"
infidel ways among the converted Muslims. This has been a continued
and still prevalent practice among the converted and the Tabligh
jamaat still has a Herculean task on its shoulders.
2b. Muslim Sultans: Muslim Sultans made the life of infidel Hindus
unbearable. According to sharia, jiziya and disproportionately heavy
taxes were imposed on the infidels. Sultan Ala-ud-din Khilji demanded
from learned men of Islam rules and regulations, so that the Hindu
should be ground down, and property and possessions, which are the
cause of disaffection and rebellion, should not remain in his house.
Qazi Mughisud-din of Bayana whom Ala-ud-din consulted as to the
legality of his measures towards Hindus, wholeheartedly justified Ala-
ud-din's rigorous policy and "pointed out that Islamic law sanctioned
sterner principle, so much so that, ‘if the revenue collector spits
into a Hindu's mouth, the Hindu must open his mouth to receive it
without hesitation." Ala-ud-din was gratified to learn that his
treatment of the Hindus was in full accordance with Islamic law and
assured the Qazi that he had given orders that the Hindu will not be
allowed to possess more than what is required for a bare
subsistence." (The History and Culture of the Indian People, vol. 6,
Bombay, 1990, pp. 24-25)
Could it be that the ancestors of Javed Anand - not necessarily the
"outcast" of Hindu society -- converted to Islam under these
circumstances?
2c. Akbar: Hindus got a little respite under relatively enlightened
policies of the third Mughal Emperor Akbar. He abolished the much
hated jiziya tax and treated non-Muslims in a more tolerant manner. He
let the Hindu princesses whom he married and were married to his sons
practice Hindu rituals in his palace contrary to usual practice of
converting them to Islam. He invited different religions for open
debate. This was not much liked by the orthodox Ulema and they accused
Akbar of apostasy of which there is no evidence. Akbar at best died an
eclectic. His death was celebrated by the orthodox ulema.
2d. Aurangzeb: Whatever goodwill was created by Akbar was soon undone
by his successors. Aurangzeb was the most orthodox of the Mughal
emperors. He has been called a ‘living pir' and is reported to have
memorized the entire Koran. His zealotry for Islam went beyond all
bounds of a sovereign. In the twelfth year of Emperor's reign' the
Vishwanath temple at Benaras, which seems to have been rebuilt, and
Keshav Rai temple at Mathura were demolished. Aurangzeb revived the
policy of demolishing temples in the wake of military campaigns which
had been followed by Delhi Sultans and occasionally by Shahjahan. In
pursuance of this policy hundreds of temples across India from Kuch
Bihar to Deccan were ruthlessly destroyed. Firman was issued that no
new temples should be built. Temples which were built in the past ten /
twelve years were classified in this category and while old temples
were spared but repairs to them were banned. Conversion to Islam was
officially promoted. The Emperor presided over the ceremony of
conversion as often as he could - these conversions were not from the
"outcasts" of Hindu society but from the zamindars, and influential
Rajputs and Jats who converted to gain favor with the ruling monarch.
(Shah Wali-Allah and his Times, SAA Rizvi, Australia, 1980, pp. 90)
S A A Rizvi observes:
"Gradually, criminals and corrupt and dishonest revenue officials
began to expiate their crimes by embracing Islam. (pp. 90)"
In 1679 officials were issued orders to realize the jiziya from non-
Muslims. The jiziya was so designed that its impact was the heaviest
on the poorest section of Hindu society who were subsequently deprived
of almost entire income from their property. This was all part of
deliberate policy to force the poorer section of Hindus to embrace
Islam. (ibid pp. 92)
Quoting Mirat-I Ahmadi Rizvi writes that the entire attention of the
Aurangzeb was directed towards strengthening the ‘manifest faith' and
to mold all affairs of the state - financial and political - according
to the sharia. In 1665, customs duty on the goods of Muslims was
levied at two and half percent and of Hindus at five percent. In 1667,
the duty on Muslims goods was totally forbidden. He issued a decree
that all posts of head clerk and above be filled with Muslims. (ibid
pp. 88)
2e. Shah Wali-Allah:
A contemporary of Abdul Wahhab of Saudi Arabia, Shah Wali-Allah's
(1703 - 1762) influence on Muslim thought in India cannot be
overemphasized.
Muslim historian I H Qureshi, (had been member of the Indian as well
as Pakistan Historical Records Commission, of the Council of the
Indian and Pakistan Institutes of International Affairs, of the
executive committees of the Indian History Conference and Pakistan
historical Society). wrote:
"Shah Wali-ullah was a man of encyclopedic learning. He was not one of
those scholars who keep different branches of knowledge in different
chambers of their mind.....The world has not produced many scholars
like him....During his lifetime his greatness was recognized by his
contemporaries and his claim to that he was MUJADDID - renewer of the
Faith -- of his century was not challenged by any one." (Ulema in
Politics -- I H Qureshi, Delhi, 1985, pp 126)
Shah Wali-Ullah is regarded as one of the greatest Muslim thinkers of
all times. This is just to emphasize what position Shah Wali-Ullah
holds in Islam and what his views about Hindus and proselytization
were?
"They (Imams) should preach that other religions were worthless since
their founders were not perfect, and their practice was opposed to
divine law, interpolations having made them unbelievable......" (Shah
Wali-Allah and His Times, SAA Rizvi, Australia, 1980, pp. 286)
"Another means of ensuring conversions was to prevent other religious
communities from worshipping their own gods. Moreover, unfavorable
discriminating laws should be imposed on non-Muslims in matters of
rules of retaliation, compensation for manslaughter and marriage, and
in political matters." (ibid pp. 286)
To streamline the Mughal administration, he wrote to Emperor Ahmad
Shah: " Strict orders should be issued in all Islamic towns forbidding
religious ceremonies publicly practiced by the infidels."(ibid pp.
294)
Most of Muslim rulers in fact did exactly the same, and many Muslim
countries do it even today. Saudi Arabia is the prime example. In
Saudi Arabia practice of any religion other than Islam is illegal. It
is reminiscent of the laws decreed by many Muslims rulers of India.
Aurangzeb, as stated above, had issued orders to ban public practice
of Hindu religion, construction of new temples and repair of old
ones.
"However, the proselytization programme of Shah Wali-Allah only
included the leaders of the Hindu community. The low class of the
infidels, according to him, were to be left alone to work in the
fields and for paying jizya. They, like beasts of burden and
agricultural livestock, were to be kept in abject misery and
despair."(ibid, pp. 286)
And the same people want us to believe Muslims have no caste
distinction. Even when Hindus were converted to Islam Hindus of higher
caste got relatively better treatment than the Hindus of the lower
castes. But still local converted Hindus were never treated as equal
to foreign Muslims. All Muslim administrations were full of first
generation Muslims from all over the Muslim world or their descendants
-- not of local converted Muslims.
2 f. Conversion from Buddhists:
"As far Buddhists, I am unable to see what possible incentive there
was for them to abandon their faith." Javed Anand wrote. Javed is
right, Buddhists had no incentive to convert to Islam and for that
matter neither did the Hindus or the Jains or the Zoroastrians.
Khurasan, Persis, Irak, Mosul, and the country up to the border of
Syria was Buddhistic. First Zoroastrians banished them from these
countries and pushed them to east of Balkh. Then came Islam and all
remnants of Buddhism were wiped off from Afghanistan and Central Asia.
(Alberuni's India, Delhi, 1993, pp. 21) Buddhist center at Nalanda was
wrecked by the marauders of Bakhtiyar Khilji about 1200 CE beyond
recovery, thus ending a continuous tradition of refuge and meeting-
place for ascetics which went back to the centuries before the Buddha.
(Indigenous Indians, Elst, Delhi, 1993, pp. 424) If anything was left,
the lofty statues of Buddha, carved on a mountain side were taken care
of the proud students of Islam - Taliban - in 2001.
True, Buddhists had no incentive to convert but Buddhism was destroyed
root and branch in Muslim territory but not in Hindu territory.
(Indigenous Indians, Elst, Delhi, 1993, pp. 424)
•3. Modern Times:
3a. Twentieth Century: In modern times, in the last century also there
were many conversions to Islam. The ones in Malabar, Noakhali, the
Punjab in 1947 stand out. All this is rather recent history and
details are easily available. All these conversions in the last
century were the result of matter of survival for the converted
whether it was Malabar or Noakhali or the killing grounds of Punjab in
the aftermath of the partition. The "outcasts" of the Hindu society
didn't exactly run to the mosques to hear its "celestial" music. On
the other hand let us see what the most outstanding leader of the
"outcasts" did?
3b. "Outcasts of Hindu society": There is no more prominent "outcast"
of Hindu society than Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar. He is in all likelihood
the greatest intellectual of all times among the "outcast" - a term
Javed Anand likes to use. Dr. Ambedkar had carried out thorough
research of the genesis of Hindu caste system and Hindu scriptures,
Buddhism, Islam and Christianity. He renounced Hinduism but neither
did the "celestial music" of Islam nor its open doors lure him into
the lap of Islam. He spurned all offers to convert to Islam and
Christianity and opted for Buddhism. Why?
"Nothing is infallible. Nothing is binding forever. Everything is
subject to inquiry and examination.": Ambedkar wrote. (Dr. Ambedkar,
Writings as and Speeches, vol. 3, Govt. of Maharashtra, 1987 , pp 442,
quoted in Indigenous Indians, Koenraad Elst, New Delhi,1993, pp. 390)
This is quite in contrast to Islamic belief where "the Koran is the
word of God, immutable and unalterable; it contains guidelines which a
Muslim must follow." It is beyond any question or doubt. It must be
accepted as the Final Truth - the Last Word of Allah.
Not only Ambedkar did not convert to Islam he was opposed to Scheduled
castes converting to Islam. After Partition the scheduled caste
politician J N Mandal was given a seat in the Pakistani cabinet as a
showpiece to lure the Scheduled castes to convert to Islam. J N Mandal
accepted this against the advice of Ambedkar. It was a great
disappointment for Mandal and soon after he resigned.
(http://www.hvk.org/specialarts/mandal/mandal.html)
Ambedkar complained that Pakistan was not allowing the Scheduled
castes to emigrate to India and was forcibly converting them to Islam.
In order to increase the Muslim population, in Hyderabad also they
were being forcibly converted. He asked them not to put their faith
in Muslims or the Muslim League just because they do not like the
Hindus. It would be fatal for them to do so. He would see that all
those who were forcibly converted would be taken back into the fold,
he said. Whatever the oppression and tyranny the Hindus practised in
them, it should not warp their vision and swerve them from their
duty." (Indigenous Indians, Koenraad Elst, New Delhi, 1993, pp.
402-3)
•4. Conclusion
There are many faults in Hinduism. At least Hindus are aware of them
and they are working at it. But as seen above, any of the fault lines
has nothing to do with their conversion to Islam. Moreover, Hinduism
is not stuck in a fixed time frame. What was true of Hinduism
yesterday no longer holds true today and Hinduism of tomorrow will be
altogether a different entity. Whatever, Mr. Javed Anand might say or
think casteism is not the soul of Hinduism.
However, there is no historical evidence whatsoever to suggest that
the "outcasts" - a term Javed Anand likes to use - were so charmed by
the "celestial" music of Islam that they jumped into its arms as the
doors of mosques were flung open. Again, only six decades ago, Hindus
suffered untold misery of life and property but came to India. They
could have converted to Islam and stayed in the only land they had
ever known in history.
If it was the "evil" caste system of Hindus that "lured" them to the
"celestial" music of Islam, what made the Zoroastrians, Egyptians, the
Anatolians, the Kurds, the Buddhists, the Afghans, the Pagans of
Arabia - to convert to Islam? There runs a common thread.
Hinduism is open - there are no bars for people who want to leave it.
To the contrary Islam has to keep its door closed so that people don't
run out of it and thus made apostasy from Islam a crime punishable
with death.
Last, but not the least, Javed Anand, ruling out Jains as his
ancestors, wrote "Jains? No way , they are not interested in Mughlai
cousin." Javed thinks whoever converted to Islam was for a big
gourmet Mughlai dinner. What a sick sense of humor if he thinks it is
humorous. How I wish the Muslims had restricted their conversion
frenzy only to those who were interested in Mughlai feast.
http://voi.org/20091108287/vinodkumar/column-vinodkumar/tbd.html
On Hindu Cowardice and Muslim Bravery
By Vinod Kumar, on 10-01-2010 07:32
There is common perception that Hindus are cowards and Muslims are
brave. Even Mahatma Gandhi went on to write: "Hindu is a coward and a
Muslim a bully by nature."
This perception mostly results from the fact that a small number of
Muslims were able to defeat the Hindus and rule over them for
centuries.
If one were to analyze the underlying causes that led to the defeat of
the Hindus, there is no evidence to suggest that the Hindu is coward
-- Hindus just have different ideology -- a different set of
priorities and ideas about nature of things.
Hindu defeats were more intellectual and cultural. Muslims brought a
new ideology and a new kind of warfare to India -- one that at first
the Hindus did not understand. And today when they fully understand
it, they are not willing to adopt it.
The Hindu mind regarding "religious" warfare was first expressed by
none else than Alberuni, a scholar in Greek, Farsi and Arabic and an
astronomer in his own right, who came to India with Mahmud Ghaznavi,
stayed in India, learnt Sanskrit, read extensively all Hindu
literature, wrote 20 books including translations on India. In his
still available book Indica, he went on to observe:
"On the whole, there is very little disputing about theological
topics among themselves; at the utmost they fight with words, but they
will never stake their soul or body or their property on religious
controversy."
Hindus believed in open discussion of theological topics but did not
kill each other for their opinions and they could not understand why
would one kill others for differing on matter of theology or imposing
their own ideas on others.
Almost thousand years later, talking of the betrayal of king Dahir of
Debal, V S Naipaul went on to explain the Hindus' reaction to Muslim
invasions in the following words:
"It is the first of the betrayals that will assist the Arab conquest.
But they are not betrayals, really. They are no more than the actions
of people who understand only that power is power, and believe they
are changing rulers; they cannot conceive that a new way is about to
come."
Last update : 10-01-2010 07:34
Hindu kings, before Islam, fought incessantly but it made no
difference to general public -- they were not asked to change their
religion, their women were not raped, their temples and cities were
not plundered and desecrated. The war did not touch their personal
lives. All they got was another king.
A new way did dawn upon India after the conquest of Muhammad bin Kasim
but the cultural moorings of Hindu were so strong that they refused to
learn the new ways of Islam. That would have meant giving up Hinduism.
While civilizations of Arabia, Egypt, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Iran and
others crumbled before the Islamic onslaught, Hindus withstood it for
centuries. Had the Hindus been cowards, India today would have been a
purely Islamic state. They refused to be annihilated and were not
desirous of annihilating even the aggressor. Religious warfare, as
Alberuni observed, has no place in their ideology.
It is not Hindus lack of understanding of these new ways even after
almost 1300 years and even when Hindus were massacred in Pakistan,
they failed to retaliate in India. Even today after all the massacres
of Hindus in Kashmir, the Hindus don't want to fight in the name of
religion. Secularism in India is not an empty slogan or mere cosmetic
-- it is the very basis of Hindu beliefs and that is why a common
Hindu is still ashamed of Babri masjid demolition while a Muslim -- of
Hindu ancestry -- has no qualms or shame of the destruction of tens of
thousands of Hindu temples by Muslim invaders. The difference in
behavior is nothing but the ideology that one follows -- both have the
same genetic pool in their blood stream.
It is not without reason that despite what has been visited upon the
Hindus by the Muslims, Hindu India is still a secular country while
there is not a single Muslim country that subscribes to the ideal of
secularism. M J Akbar in his book The Siege within India admits that
India is secular because it is a Hindu majority country.
As far as Hindu bravery is concerned -- it is well documented in the
annals of Muslim victors themselves -- I need not go into details of
that. It is the Hindu psyche that refuses to act contrary to their
long held beliefs that killing in the name of religion is not the
right thing to do.
The success of the Muslim invaders came not from their being a martial
or superior race or being physically stronger -- it were the same
Arabs who had not done any "brave" acts other than trading in entire
history before Islam -- it was only after they took on the ideology of
Islam that preached them to be cruel to all infidels and spread the
"TRUE FAITH" that they went on the rampage. The Buddhist Afghans had
lived with their Buddhist/Hindu neighbors for a millennium -- it was
only after they adopted the creed of Islam that they went on the
rampage on those very people with whom they shared history and
culture.
A study of the lives and teachings of Muhammad and Buddha, Mahavir and
even Gandhi today will explain why the Muslims and the Hindus behave
the way they do. Physically and genetically an Indian/Pakistani Muslim
is no different from his Hindu compatriot -- it is the ideology that
one follows that makes the difference. It is the ideology that makes
them act so differently from each other.
The Vedic "Ekam satya, viprah bahuda vadanti" -- there is one truth
but people call it by different names -- is deeply engraved on and
continues to control the Hindu mind and actions while the Koranic
injunctions "Islam is the only true faith" and "Those who do not
believe in Our revelations shall be inheritors of Hell" continue to
guide the minds and lives of Muslims.
http://voi.org/20100110336/vinodkumar/column-vinodkumar/onhinducowardiceandmuslimbravery.html
India As Alberuni Saw It
By Vinod Kumar, on 17-01-2010 04:19
Abu Rihan Muhammad bin Ahmad, Alberuni as his compatriots called him
was born about A.D. 973, in the territory of modern Khiva, then called
Khwarizm. He came to as Ghazni as a prisoner of war1. He was an
astronomer, geometrician, historian and logician. He was so studious,
his earliest biographer tells us "he never had a pen out of his hand,
nor his eye ever off a book, and his thoughts were ever directed to
his studies, with the exception of two days in the year". He was
beyond comparison, superior to every man of his time in the art of
composition, in scholarlike accomplishments, and in the knowledge of
geometry and philosophy, and above all he had "most rigid regard for
truth."2 He accompanied Mahmud of Ghazni to India and stayed there for
many years, chiefly, in all probability in the Punjab, studied the
Sanskrit language and translated into it some works from the Arabic,
and translated from it two treatises into Arabic3. Sachau, translator
of Alberuni's Indica believes Alberuni "composed about twenty books on
India4, both translations and original compositions, and a number of
tales and legends, mostly derived from the ancient lore of Eran and
India." He was indeed a prolific writer and his works are stated to
have exceeded a camel-load.5
Let me also make another observation about Alberuni. He regards Hindus
as excellent philosophers and he felt strong inclination towards Hindu
philosophy but still he was a Muslim and at times does not fail to
point out the superiority of Islam over Brahmanic India. He attacks
Arabs but not Islam6. He wrote for those Muslims who "want to converse
with the Hindus, and to discuss with them the questions of religion,
science, or literature, on the very basis of their own civilization."7
While discussing astronomical calculations regarding the order of the
planets, their distances and sizes, he reminds the reader the purpose
of his book once again --- to discuss subjects "which either are
noteworthy for their strangeness, or which are unknown among our own
people (the Muslims) and our (the Muslim) countries."8
Having given a brief introduction, let us now see what Alberuni had to
say about India, the land, its people, its religion, its philosophy,
its sciences, and its literature.
•1. Hindu Muslim Differences:
Alberuni starts Indica by observing "the Hindus entirely differ from
us in every respect"9. First and foremost difference is the language.
Sanskrit is a language of enormous range, both in words and in
inflections. They call one and the same thing by various names and
unless one knows the context in which the word is spoken. Some of the
sounds of consonants are neither identical nor resemble with the
Arabic and Persian. And the Hindus write their scientific books in
metrics so that they can be committed to memory and thus prevented
from corruption. This metrical form of literary composition makes the
study of Sanskrit particularly difficult.10
Not only the language, the Hindus totally differ from us (Muslims) in
religion, as "we believe in nothing in which they believe" and vice
versa. He goes on to observe that on theological topics "at the utmost
they fight with words, but they will never stake their soul or body or
their property on religious controversy."11 Instead, he noted, all
their fanaticism is directed against foreigners whom they call
mlecchas i.e. impure and forbid any connection with them12. The Hindus
have concepts of pollution and never desire that once thing is
polluted, it should be purified and thus recovered. They are not
allowed receive anybody who does not belong to them, even if he wished
to be inclined to their religion13, he went on to write.
He wrote the customs and manners the Hindus differ so completely from
the Muslims that "they frighten their children with us, our dress and
our ways and customs" and decree us as "devil's breed". They regard
"everything we do as opposite of all that is good and proper".14 Some
of the reasons of Hindus' repugnance of Muslims are complete
banishment of Buddhists from countries from Khurasan, Persis, Irak,
Mosul and Syria, first by the Zoroastrians and then by Islam. And then
Muhammad ibn Elkasim entered India proper, conquered the cities of
Bahmanwa and Mulsthan and went as far as Kanauj -- "all these events
planted a deeply rooted hatred in their hearts."15
And then Sabuktagin choosing the holy war as his calling, called
himself a Ghazi, built those roads on Indian frontier which his son
Sultan Yamin-uddaula Mahmud, during a period of thirty years, used to
utterly ruin "the prosperity of the country, and performed those
wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust
scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of
the people." He goes on to say "their scattered remains cherish, of
course, the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims."16
Alberuni does not talk much about Mahmud whom he calls "the lion of
the world, the wonder of his time" when he remembers him for
"breaking the strongest pillar of religion", 17 and his raids into
India, except a few times. Once about his ruining the prosperity of
the country as quoted above and second when he writes of his
demolition of the idol, in the year A.H. 416, at Somnath much revered
by the Hindus. The upper part of the idol was demolished and the lower
part transported to his residence in Ghazni with all its trappings.
One part of it, along with the bronze idol of Chakraswamin from
Thanesar, was thrown into the hippodrome and another part before the
door of the mosque of Ghazni, on which people rub their feet to clean
them from dirt and wet. 18
•2. On Hindus customs:
He found Hindus to be very proud of their country, their kings, their
religion, their sciences to the extent that he thought them to be
"haughty, foolishly vain, self-conceited and stolid."19
Many customs of the Hindus, he observed, differ from Muslims' "to such
a degree as to appear to us simply monstrous." Hindu customs, not
only, not resemble to Muslim customs but are the very reverse; and if
ever a custom of theirs resembles one of the Muslims, it has certainly
the opposite meaning. He goes on to say that it seems as if "they
(Hindus) had intentionally changed into the opposite".20
What are these customs of the Hindus that he observed that he thought
were the opposite of theirs?
"The Hindus eat singly, one by one, on a tablecloth of dung. They do
not make use of the remainder of a meal, and the plates from which
they have eaten are thrown away if they are earthen."
"They drink wine before having eaten anything, then they take their
meal. They drink the stall of cows but they do not eat their meat."
"In all consultations and emergencies they take advice of the women."
"They do not seek permission to enter a house, but when they leave it
they ask permission to do so."
"In their meetings they sit cross-legged."
"They magnify the nouns of their language by giving them the feminine
gender, as the Arabs magnify them by diminutive form."
"They consider the crepitus ventris as a good omen, sneezing as a bad
omen."
"They write the title of the book at the end of it, not at the
beginning".21
Last update : 17-01-2010 04:26
•3. Hindu Arithmetic:
On Hindu arithmetic Alberuni observed the Hindus do not use the
letters of their alphabet for numerical notation, as Muslims use the
Arabic letters in the order of the Hebrew alphabet. The use of Arabic
letters for numerals must not have been in wide use when Alberuni
wrote c.1030 CE, for these have been communicated to the Arabs in the
eighth and ninth centuries as he goes on to accept that "the numeral
signs which we use have been derived from the finest forms of Hindu
signs." Having observed the names of the orders of the numbers in
various languages he had come in contact with, Alberuni found that no
nation goes beyond the thousand including the Arabs. Those who beyond
the thousand in their numeral system are the Hindus who extend the
names of the orders of numbers until the 18th order.22
Pulisa has adpoted the relation between the circumference and
diameter of a circle to be 3 177/1250 which comes out to 3.1416.23
•4. Astronomy and sciences:
While ancient puranic traditions about the earth and heavens and their
creation still existed, but these were in direct opposition to the
scientific truths known to Indian astronomers.
While it is not possible to mention all the theories and concepts
prevalent at the time, let it suffice to say what some of the ideas
of Hindu astronomers that Alberuni found interesting were. Quoting
Brahamgupta, Alberuni wrote:
"Several circumstances, however, compel us to attribute globular shape
to both the earth and the heaven, viz. the fact that the stars rise
and set in different places at different times, so that, e.g. a man in
Yamakoti observes one identical start rising above the western
horizon, whilst a man in Rum at the same time observes it rising above
the eastern horizon. Another argument to the same effect is this, that
a man on Meru observes one identical star above the horizon in the
zenith of Lanka, the country of demons, whilst a man in Lanka at the
same time observes it above his head. Besides all astronomical
observations are not correct unless we assume the globular shape of
heaven and earth. Therefore we must declare that heaven is a globe,
and the observation of these characteristics of the world would not be
correct unless in reality it were a globe. Now it is evident that all
other theories about the world are futile." 24
Quoting Varahmira, he further continues:
"Mountains, seas, rivers, trees, cities, men, and angels, all are
around the globe of the earth. And if Yamakoti and Rum are opposite to
each other, one could not say that the one is low in relation to the
other, since low does not exist.... Every one speaks of himself, 'I am
above and the others are below,' whilst all of them are around the
globe like the blossoms springing on the branches of a Kadamba-tree.
They encircle it on all the sides, but each individual blossom has the
same position as the other, neither one hanging downward nor then
other standing upright." He emphasized: "For the earth attracts that
which is upon her, for it is the below towards all directions, and
heaven is the above towards all directions."
There was no consensus about the resting or movement of the earth.
Aryabahata thought that the earth is moving and the heaven resting.
Many astronomers contested this saying were it so, stones and trees
would fall from earth. But Brahamgupta did not agree with them saying
that that would not happen apparently because he thought all heavy
things are attracted towards the center of the earth.26
The above gives some idea as to the nature of discussion in astronomy
at that time but Sachau observes these ideas had not changes much
since the eighth century when the knowledge of Hindu sciences were
communicated to the Arabs.
On the topic of ocean tides, Alberuni wrote that the educated Hindus
determine the daily phases of the tides by the rising and setting of
the moon, the monthly phases by the increase and waning of the moon;
but the physical cause of the both phenomenon is not understood by
them.27
The Hindus have cultivated numerous branches of science and have
boundless literature, which with his knowledge, he could comprehend.
He wished he could have translated Panchtantra which in Arabia was
known as the not book of Kalila and Dimna.28
•5. Hindu Laws:
Hindu laws, Alberuni observed are derived from their rishis, the
pillars of their religion and not from the prophets i.e. Narayana..
"Narayana only comes into this world in the form of human figure to
set the world right when things have gone wrong. Hindus can easily
abrogate their laws for they believe such changes are necessitated by
the change of nature of man. Many things which are now forbidden were
allowed before". 29
•6. On pilgrimage and sacred places:
Pilgrimages, Alberuni noted, are not obligatory for the Hindus, but
"facultative and meritorious". Most of the venerated places are
located in the cold regions round mount Meru.30
About the construction of Holy ponds, let me quote his own words:
"In every place to which some particular holiness is ascribed, the
Hindus construct ponds intended for the ablutions. In this they have
attained to a very degree of art, so that our people (the Muslims),
when they see them, wonder at them, and are unable to describe them,
much less to construct anything like them. They build them of great
stones of enormous bulk, joined to each other by sharp and strong
cramp-irons, in the form of steps (or terraces) like so many ledges;
and these terraces run all around the pond, reaching to a height of
more than a man's stature. On the surface of the stones between two
terraces they construct staircases rising like pinnacles. Thus the
first step or terraces are like roads 9leading up and down). If ever
so many people descend to the pond whilst others ascend, they do not
meet each other, and the road is never blocked, because there are so
many terraces, and the ascending person can always turn aside to
another terrace than on which the descending people go. By this
arrangement all troublesome thronging is avoided."31
May be what he had in mind was Chand Baori well near Jaipur built in
9th century..
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/FBBBCA69-8F08-4DCD-A351-9E93D9D31EBC/
•7. Hindu caste system:
No discussion of India would be complete without observation on the
contemporary caste system and rightly so Alberuni does miss it. He
describes the traditional division of Hindu society along the four
Varnas and the Antyaja -- who are not reckoned in any caste; but makes
no mention of any oppression of low caste by the upper castes. Much,
however the four castes differ from each other, they live together in
the same towns and villages, mixed together in the same houses and
lodgings. The Antyajas are divided into eight classes -- formed into
guilds -- according to their professions who freely intermarry with
each other except with the fuller, shoemaker and the weaver. They live
near the villages and towns of the four castes but outside of them.32
On the eating customs of the four castes, he observed that when eating
together, they form a group of their own caste, one group not
comprising a member of another caste. Each person must have his own
food for himself and it is not allowed to eat the remains of the meal.
They don't share food from the same plate as that which remains in the
plate becomes after the first eater has taken part, the remains of the
meal.33
Alberuni wrote extensively on India and on many aspects. It is
impossible to cover every topic in a rather small article but I have
tried to give some of the points which would look strange or were not
known to the Muslims.
1 Sachau E C, Alberuni's India, Low Price Publications, New Delhi,
1993, pp. viii
2 Elliot and Dowson, The History of India as told by its own
historians, Low Price Publications, New Delhi, 1996, vol. II, pp. 2
3 ibid., pp. 5
4 Sachau, pp. xxvii
5 Elliot and Dowson, vol. II, pp. 3
6 Sachau, pp.185,
7 Sachau, pp. xvii, xix, xxiii
8 Sachau, pp. ii - 80
9 Sachau, pp. 17
10 Sachau, pp.18-19
11Sachau, pp. 19
12 Sachau, pp. 19
13 Sachau, pp. 20
14 Sachau, pp. 20
15 Sachau, pp. 21
16 Sachau, pp. 22
17 Sachau, pp. ii - 2
18 Sachau, pp. ii - 103
19 Sacahu, pp. 22
20 Sachau, pp. 179
21 Sachau, pp. 180-2
22 Sachau, pp. 174
23 Sachau, pp. 169
24 Sachau, pp. 268
25 Sacahu, pp. 272
26 Sachau, pp. 276-7
27 Sachau, pp ii-105
28 Sachau, pp. 159
29 Sacahu, pp. 106 - 7
30 Sachau, pp. ii - 142
31 Sacahu, pp. ii144 - 5
32 Sachau. Pp. 101
33 Sachau, pp. 102
http://voi.org/20100117341/vinodkumar/column-vinodkumar/indiaasalberunisawit.html
From The Pages of History
By Vinod Kumar, on 31-01-2010 11:06
Earth's Rotation, Globular Shape and Gravity
When we talk of the earth going around the sun as it has always done,
its globular shape, the different seasons, different lengths of day
and night, mind goes back to Galileo and Copernicus, scared to death,
holding the truth back lest the fury of the church falls upon them for
letting the world know the reality of nature. When one thinks of
gravity one thinks of Newton sitting under an apple tree watching an
apple fall to the ground and Newton proclaiming "Lo! there is
gravity."
If I were to say Hindu philosophers talked and wrote about gravity and
the globular shape of the earth centuries before Newton and Galileo
and Copernicus, and quoted Hindu sources, I would not only be
dismissed as a "fanatical Hindu communalist" by our 'all-knowing-
secular intellectuals' but also incur their wrath. And who wants
that?
In order to state the truth and make it acceptable to our 'all-knowing-
secular intellectuals' let me seek the help of a Muslim scholar from
Central Asia. Who around 1030 AD wrote a very comprehensive book
"Indica" about India -- its literature, its philosophy, its religion,
its culture, its languages, its history, its geography, its customs,
its sciences including astronomy. I am talking about Abu-Raihan
Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Alberuni -- a scholar and a devout genuine Muslim
by all standards.
Before I go into what Alberuni wrote let us take some time to find out
more about this man -- Alberuni.
In the words of Edward Sachau -- translator of Alebruni's 'Indica':
"Mahmud marched into the country, not without some fighting,
established there one of his generals as provincial governor, and soon
returned to Ghazna with much booty and a great part of Khiva troops,
together with the princes of the deposed family of Mamun and the
leading men of the country as prisoners of war or as hostages. Among
the last was Abu-Raihan Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Alberuni. This happened in
the spring and summer of AD 1017."
"When he (Alberuni) was brought to Ghazna as a hostage, he enjoyed the
reputation of a great 'munajjim' i.e. "astrologer - astronomer". By
the time he wrote 'Indica' thirteen years later after his involuntary
immigration to Afghanistan, he was a master of astrology, both
according to the Greek and the Hindu systems.
"Alberuni felt a strong inclination towards Indian philosophy. He
seems to have thought that the philosophers both in ancient India and
Greece, held in reality the very same ideas, the same as seem to have
been his own i.e. of pure monotheism. He seems to have to have reveled
in the pure theories of Bhagavad-Gita. ... There can scarcely be any
doubt that the Muslims of later times would have found fault with him
for going to such length in his interest for these heathenish
doctrines" observes Sachau, but "still he was Muslim, whether Sunni or
Shia cannot be gathered from Indica. He sometimes takes an occasion
for pointing out to the reader the superiority of Islam over
Brahamanical India... He dares not attack Islam but attacks the
Arabs."
What was the object of his writing 'Indica'?
"The object which the author had in view and never for a moment lost
sight of, was to afford the necessary information and training to any
one (in Islam) who wants to converse with the Hindus, and to discuss
with them questions of religion, science, or literature, on the very
basis of their own civilization."
Alberuni came to India with Mahmud and stayed there. He learnt
Sanskrit and Hindu literature and sciences and indeed wrote a very
comprehensive book about India of those days. As a Muslim he praises
the 'wonderful exploits of Mahmud saying: "Mahmud utterly ruined the
prosperity of the country, and performed those wonderful exploits, by
which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all
directions" but as a scholar he laments "this is the reason, too, why
Hindu sciences have retired far away from those parts of the country
conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet
reach, to Kashmir, Benares, and other places."
It seems from above that his study was done in area which was under
Mahmud's control, most likely western Punjab. But still what he writes
is very illuminating. Let us now see what wrote about our subject:
astronomy in India and gravity and the solar system.
Quoting from Brahamgupta's Brahamsidhanta, Alberuni wrote:
"Several circumstances, however, compel us to attribute globular shape
to both the earth and the heaven, viz. the fact that the stars rise
and set in different places at different times, so that, e.g. a man in
Yamakoti observes one identical start rising above the western
horizon, whilst a man in Rum at the same time observes it rising above
the eastern horizon. Another argument to the same effect is this, that
a man on Meru observes one identical star above the horizon in the
zenith of Lanka, the country of demons, whilst a man in Lanka at the
same time observes it above his head. Besides all astronomical
observations are not correct unless we assume the globular shape of
heaven and earth. Therefore we must declare that heaven is a globe,
and the observation of these characteristics of the world would not be
correct unless in reality it were a globe. Now it is evident that all
other theories about the world are futile."
Last update : 31-01-2010 11:12
Earlier philosophers like Aryabhata, Vasishtha and Lata had also come
to the same conclusion and Alberuni goes on to quote Varahmira: "all
things which are perceived by the senses, are witness in favor of the
globular shape of the earth, and refute the possibility of its having
any other shape."
On the subject of the rotation of the earth Alberuni writes:
"As regards the resting of the earth, one of the elementary problems
of astronomy, which offers many and great difficulties, this, too, is
a dogma with the Hindu astronomers. Brahamgupta says in the
Brahamsiddhanta: 'some people maintain that the first motion (from
east to west) does not lie in the meridian, but belongs to the earth.
But Varahmira refutes them by saying: If that were the case, a bird
would not return to its nest as soon as it had flown away from it
towards the west.' And, in fact it is precisely as Varahmira says."
Alberuni agrees with Varahmira that earth does not rotate.
Alberuni goes on to quote Brahamgupta:
"The followers of Aryabhata maintain that the earth is moving and the
heaven resting. People have tried to refute them by saying that, if
such were the case, stones would and trees would fall from the earth.
Brahamgupta does not agree with them, and says that that would not
necessarily follow from their theory, apparently because he thought
that all heavy things are attracted towards the center of the earth.
He says: 'On the contrary, if that were the case, the earth would not
vie in keeping an even and uniform pace with the minutes of heaven,
the pranas of the times."
Alberuni does not agree with Brahamgupta and is unable to understand
the rotation of the earth and goes on to write:
"Supposing this to be true, and that the earth makes a complete
rotation eastward in so many breaths as heaven does according to his
(Brahamgupta's) view, we cannot see what should prevent the earth from
keeping an even and uniform pace with heaaven
Stubbornly he refuses to accept the theory of the rotation of the
earth and goes on to say:
"Besides, the rotation of the earth in no way impair the value of
astronomy, as all appearances of an astronomic character can quite as
well be explained according to this theory as to the other. There are,
however, other reasons which make it impossible."
Alberuni says he also has written a book on this subject in which ' we
have surpassed our predecessors' but does not tell what his theories
are?
On the question of gravity and other issues like top and bottom, high
and low, Alberuni quotes Brahamgupta and says:
"Scholars have declared that the globe of the earth is in the midst of
heaven, and that Mount Meru, the home of Devas, as well as Vadavamukha
below, is the home of their opponents; the Daitya and Dhanava belong
to it. But his below is according to them is only a relative one.
Disregarding this, we say that the earth on all its sides is the same;
all people on earth stand upright, and all heavy things fall down to
the earth by a law of nature, for it is the nature of the earth to
attract and to keep things, as it is the nature of water to flow, that
of fire to burn, and that of wind to set in motion... The earth is the
only low thing, and seeds always return to it, in whatever direction
you may throw them away, and never rise upwards from the earth."
Varahmira explains it further:
"Mountains, seas, rivers, trees, cities, men, and angels, all are
around the globe of the earth. And if Yamakoti and Rum are opposite to
each other, one could not say that the one is low in relation to the
other, since low does not exist.... Every one speaks of himself, 'I am
above and the others are below,' whilst all of them are around the
globe like the blossoms springing on the branches of a Kadamba-tree.
They encircle it on all the sides, but each individual blossom has the
same position as the other, neither one hanging downward nor then
other standing upright." He emphasized: "For the earth attracts that
which is upon her, for it is the below towards all directions, and
heaven is the above towards all directions."
Now these were the thoughts of Hindu philosophers as recorded by
Alberuni in the early part of the eleventh century and these had not
changed for centuries. Alberuni quotes heavily from Brahamgupta whose
Brahamsiddhanta was composed in AD 628. But it was Aryabhata, born in
AD 476, the first to hold that the earth was a sphere and rotated on
its axis and that the eclipses were not the work of Rahu but caused by
the shadow of the earth falling on the moon. His Aryabhatiya was
composed in AD 499.
It is clear from above that it was over a millennium before Galileo,
Copernicus and Newton that the Hindu philosophers had formulated the
theories about the globular shape and rotation of the earth and
gravity.
http://voi.org/20100131352/vinodkumar/column-vinodkumar/fromthepagesofhistory.html
My Name is Khan
By Vinod Kumar, on 15-03-2010 03:52
Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray's pronouncement not to let Shah Rukh
Khan's starrer My Name Is Khan be screened in Mumbai created much
sensation around the world and publicity for the film -- the publicity
that it could not have bought at any cost. Actually, Bal Thackeray's
action had nothing to do with the film itself - it was all about Shah
Rukh's saying that Pakistan is "great neighbor" whatever Shah Rukh's
definiotn of a "great neighbor" is. But anyway, film's name My Name is
Khan and its oft publicized credo "My name is Khan and I am not a
terrorist" in itself is quite provocative.
The film though made in India is set in the USA and deals in the
aftermath of September 11, 2001 attacks on the twin towers and the
pentagon. What was the purpose of making the film and declaring
basically that even though I am a Muslim but I am not terrorist? As
soon as the attacks happened American administration went out of its
way to insist and make a point that Islam has nothing to do with the
acts of terrorism and Muslims are patriotic citizens of the country.
So what was the point to go and tell the President of the United
States seven years after the act even though I am a Muslim, I am not a
terrorist - the President has been telling the world that from day
one. He need not be told what he has been proclaiming from day one.
If anyone that needed to be told the massage were the perpetrators of
the crime who carried out the act in the name of Islam.
Now then what was the film all about?
It seems the sole purpose the film was made was a propaganda for
Islam. But anything that is carried too far loses its appeal and that
is exactly what the film succeeded in achieving. Every film, every
story has to have some exaggeration to make a point - that is normal.
But when carried to beyond imagination and all limits, it turns
people off. The film may find appreciative audience in the Muslim
Middleast and other Islamic countries - and blind admirers of Shah
Rukh which are aplenty -- but it will turn off a neutral person. It
is difficult to imagine how Shah Rukh would have handled the character
of an autistic person had Dustin Hoffman not done the role in The Rain
Man - if the face of Shah Rukh is covered one would not know whether
it is him or Dustin. The story is weak.
Shah Rukh by doing the role has done a big disfavor to his image of
being a representative of the secular film industry of India. He is
now just an Islamic propagandist.
http://voi.org/20100315384/vinodkumar/column-vinodkumar/mynameiskhan.html
http://voi.org/vinodkumar/viewallarticles.html?list=1
Don't Block the 'Internet Hindus'
By Kanchan Gupta, on 15-03-2010 04:38
Hindus who are proud to assert their identity and fly the Tricolour
high have now found a new platform to have their say, the way they
want it, without fear of being shouted down. Tired of being derided by
pseudo-secularists in media who see nothing wrong with Muslim
communalism and Christian fundamentalism but are swift to pounce upon
Hindus for being ‘intolerant', their cultural ethos crudely denigrated
by the Left-liberal intelligentsia as antediluvian, Hindus have begun
to harness technology to strike back with deadly effect.
They are bright, they are well-educated, they are not burdened with
regional and caste biases, they are amazingly well-informed on
national issues and world affairs, they are rooted in Indian culture,
and they are politically alert. They hate being told they are wrong
when they know they are right. They have a mind of their own and
refuse to be led like sheep. Not surprisingly, they hold the Congress,
the Left and regional parties in contempt, as they do journalists who
cravenly ingratiate themselves with the establishment. For them, India
matters - and matters more than anything else. Meet the ‘Internet
Hindus'.
In recent days there has been a spate of articles disparaging the
‘Internet Hindus', variously describing them as "loonies", "fanatics",
"irrational", "Hindu Taliban" and, by an enraged news channel anchor,
"gutter snipes". Much of the criticism has come from left-of-centre
journalists who believe they have unfettered monopoly over media as
their inalienable birth right. Exalted members of Delhi's
commentariat, who are indistinguishable from the city's la-di-dah
socialites, tend to turn up their noses every time they hear the
phrase ‘Internet Hindus' as they would at the suggestion of travelling
by public transport. Others are given to contemptuously brushing aside
‘Internet Hindus' as being irrelevant and describing their views as
inconsequential. All this and more has neither dampened the spirit of
‘Internet Hindus' nor blunted their assertive attitude.
Here are some statistics, culled from an ongoing online survey, which
would help create a generic profile of ‘Internet Hindus'. The survey
is open to all Hindus who use the Internet; the response has been
overwhelming. Of those who have responded, 88.9 per cent have
identified themselves as ‘Internet Hindus', indicating they attach no
shame to the term though their critics would want them to feel
ashamed. Of the respondents, four per cent are aged 20 years and
below; 55 per cent are aged 30 and below; 31 per cent are 40 and
below; and, only 10 per cent are aged above 40. In brief, 90 per cent
of them are young Indians.
The educational profile of the respondents is awesome: 43 per cent are
graduates (most of them from top-notch engineering, science and
medical colleges); 46 per cent are post-graduates (a large number of
them have MBA degrees from the best B-schools); and, 11 per cent have
PhDs. It is understandable that none of them is unemployed. Those
without jobs are still studying (17.3 per cent) and can be found in
labs and classrooms of the best universities here and abroad. Of the
82.7 per cent who are employed, 3.1 per cent earn up to Rs 2 lakh a
year; 18.4 per cent earn up to Rs 6 lakh a year; 34.7 per cent earn up
to Rs 12 lakh a year; and, 26.5 per cent earn more than Rs 24 lakh a
year. Nearly 60 per cent of them frequently travel abroad on work and
holiday. Some 11 per cent have travelled abroad at least once.
Contrary to the impression that is being sought to be created by their
critics, ‘Internet Hindus' are open to ideas, believe in a plural, law-
abiding society and swear by the Constitution. They are often appalled
by the shenanigans of our politicians, including those of the BJP, and
are ruthless in decrying politics of identity and cynical vote-bank
policies. They have no gender prejudices and most of them think
banning FTV is downright silly in this day and age. The ‘Internet
Hindus' will not countenance denigration of their faith or biased
media coverage of events, but 91.9 per cent of them respect and accept
other religions. Asked if India is meant only for Hindus, an
overwhelming majority of them, responding to the survey, said, ‘Hell,
no!'
So why do they infuriate pseudo-secularists in media and make Delhi's
commentariat see red? There are three possible explanations. First,
the Net is beyond the control of those who control newspapers and news
channels. While the print and audiovisual media have for long excluded
contrarian opinion and denied space to those who disagree with absurd
notions of ‘secularism' or question the quality of reportage, the Net
has provided space to the ‘other' voice. Real time blog posts now
record the ‘other side' of the day's story ("The Prince was shouted
down in Bihar, not feted by students!"), Twitter affords instant micro-
blogging even as prime time news is being telecast ("That's not true.
I live in Bareilly. This is not how the riots began!"), and YouTube
allows unedited amateur videos of events (the Meraj riots, the
Islamist violence in Kashmir Valley) to be uploaded, giving the lie to
edited and doctored versions shown by news channels.
Second, unlike carefully selected ‘Letters to the Editor' in
newspapers and ‘Feedback' posted on news channel websites, the
reactions of ‘Internet Hindus', often savage and unflattering, cannot
be thrown into the dustbin or deleted with a click of the mouse.
English language media journalists, long used to fawning praise from
readers and viewers, are horrified that someone can actually call them
‘dumb' in public space and there's nothing they can do about it.
Third, the established elite, most of them middle-aged, are beginning
to feel threatened. Here's a new breed of Indians who have used merit
and not ‘connections' to make a mark in professional excellence, young
men and women who are educated and articulate, and are willing to
challenge conventional wisdom as preached by media ‘stars' who have
rarely, if ever, been questioned. The elite who dominate newspapers
and news channels are seen by ‘Internet Hindus' as part of India's
past, not future. As one ‘Internet Hindu' writes in his blog, "A large
number of ex-elite can't stomach fact that children of bankruptcy are
better travelled, better read and dominate the Internet!" Harsh, but
true.
We can describe the ‘Internet Hindus' as the "lunatic fringe", but
that won't change the fact that their tribe is growing by the day.
Soon, those on the fringe will move to the centre and their critics
will find themselves precariously perched on the fringe. The Right is
gaining ground as is the access and reach of the Net; newspapers and
news channels, the Left's last refuge, no longer command absolute
control over information flow. It would be unwise to ‘block' the voice
of ‘Internet Hindus', as then their clamour to be heard will further
increase and there is nothing we can do to silence them. The times
they are a-changin'.
Courtesy: http://www.dailypioneer.com/241956/Don't-block-the-‘Internet-Hindus'.html
http://voi.org/14mar2010/sourced/thepioneer/dontblocktheinternethindus.html
Editorial: The Guilty Men of Our Democracy
By The Editorial Team, on 15-03-2010 03:46
Gujarat and Anti-Sikh Riots
The law of the land should prevail. The highest and the mightiest
should respect the word and spirit of law. Otherwise the very
existence of democracy in the country would be threatened. It would be
a law of the jungle.
Yet, equally important is that the provisions of the Constitution that
provide for equality before law for however high or law, an individual
may be, irrespective of caste, creed and sex. But it is here that our
democracy is deficient.
The SIT constituted by the Supreme Court to investigate some cases of
Gujarat riots has summoned Gujarat Chief Minister Shri Narendra Modi.
The law should take its own course. Shri Modi is expected to extend
full cooperation and respect the law of the land.
But what raises eyebrows and pains the observers is the duplicity and
double standards being practiced by the judiciary, the media, the
intelligentsia and the so-called tribe of liberals and secularists.
The Gujarat riots and the 1984 anti-Sikhs riots have many similarities
and, in a sense, the latter riots were more heinous and cruel in the
sense that these were directed only against Sikhs and only in the
States ruled by the Congress. Shri Modi never justified the riots but
the then Congress President and Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi did,
saying on record having stated that "when a big tree falls, the earth
below is sure to shake". Yet, Shri Gandhi has been spared for the anti-
Sikh riots the epithets that are used for Shri Narinder Modi for
Gujarat riots.
More people died in anti-Sikh riots than in Gujarat riots. Delhi then,
and even now, for law and order is directly under the administrative
control. It is here that more than 3300 Sikhs died. The total number
of Sikhs having been butchered in different parts of the country is
more than 4000 while it is about 2500 in Gujarat which includes Hindus
too. For full three days, as per reports of successive Commissions of
Inquiry, the anti-Sikh rioters ruled Delhi and no FIRs were
registered. No military was summoned to quell the riots. The police
remained a silent spectator. Yet, the Congress which ruled at the
Centre and the States continued to remain the holy icon of piety,
secularism and rule of law. Even after 25 years the anti-Sikh riots
sufferers continue to suffer the agony of their loss with little hope
for justice.
Surprisingly, even the courts were not that condescending for Sikh
suffers as these have been for Gujarat riot victims. No Special
Investigating Teams were constituted by the courts which also did no
monitoring of the progress of investigations. Another stark reality is
that while Modi regime registered cases against rioters, prosecuted
them and many have been taken to their logical conclusions with many
convictions, the same is not true of anti-Sikh riots. Many MLAs, ex-
MLAs and other prominent workers of the ruling party in Gujarat are in
jails facing trial. The same cannot be said about anti-Sikh riots.
The human rights organizations which beat their chests for Gujarat
riot victims are, unfortunately and shamelessly, heartless for anti-
Sikh riot victims. They seem to have turned deaf, dumb and blind to
the realities of anti-Sikh riots.
The present Congress-led UPA government, too, for understandable
political reasons, has treated the Gujarat riot victims and anti-Sikh
riots differently. It has been more kind to the former than the
latter.
Why is that the whole system - whether the executive, the judiciary,
the media, intelligentsia and human rights organizations - are
treating the same ugly incidents differently? They are doing a great
disservice to the present system of government and the institutions of
the Constitution. Nobody can be more guilty or more innocent and
deserving more punishment than the other in the same circumstances in
this country.
Let it be a warning to all who matter. By their words and actions and
by indulging in discrimination and favourtism against one section or
the other, they are only venturing to defeat the very purpose and
spirit of democracy. It is they who will tomorrow be counted the
guilty men of our democracy.
http://voi.org/20100315383/14mar2010/editorial/editorial/editorial:theguiltymenofourdemocracy.html
Sita as an Empowered Indian Woman
Book- Review
The other day Rahul Mahajan got married on a reality TV show. His
marriage was of course for real, and one wishes him well in life. Some
one remarked that the show was a tribute to the new Indian woman who
had taken the unconventional path to choosing a life partner. He said
that it was the coming of age of the Indian Woman.
As I watched the final scenes of the show, I was reminded of a comment
a young woman had made some months ago in connection with the
Ramayana. "I do not wish to be a Sita -- meek and submissive. I am the
new Indian woman!"
Three 'new Indian women' stood decked in bridal finery, fluttering
nervously and waiting to be chosen in the final episode. The 'new
Indian women' felt nothing wrong in being commoditised and rejected in
front of a live audience of lakhs across the country. As for the
mythological Sita to whom our young friend had disparagingly referred,
remember that she had chosen her groom on her terms. If this is not
women empowerment, what is!
The following review done by me of a book on Sita adds to what I have
said:
In Search of Sita: Revisiting Mythology
Edited by Malashri Lal & Namita Gokhale
Yatra Books/Penguin Books
Rs 399/-
Perhaps the most enigmatic of all Indian mythological figures is Sita.
She has been in the country's subconsciousness for centuries largely
as the ideal Indian Woman. There has been a tendency by modern
commentators and feminists to run her down for being ‘passive' and
‘submissive' and failing to claim her rights at various stages of her
life, even when she was publicly humiliated for no fault of hers. That
being the case, it would come as no surprise if the ‘modern Indian
woman' is less than enthusiastic in holding her as her ‘hero.'
Given this context, one must welcome with open arms the excellent
collection of essays on Sita edited by Malashri Lal and Namita Gokhale
that seeks to firmly establish her image as a strong-willed woman who
charted her own course in a largely male-dominated society. The irony
is that she had to go through a series of trials and tribulations as a
result of machination by two women, Kaikeyi and Manthara. In Search of
Sita: Revisiting Mythology is a marvellous book that not only has
commentaries written by well-known authors but also contains various
versions of the epic Ramayan, depicting Sita's role. The anthology
also provides a range of "creative interpretations" of the ‘dutiful
and meek' wife of Rama.
What makes the book even more special is the ideological space it
provides to writers with different bends of mind. So, if there is
Meghnad Desai and Indira Goswami, there is also Tarun Vijay and Karen
Gabriel - the latter weaving for the reader an interesting Sita-
Draupadi syntax in a gender context.
It should be clear to the reader, if he or she were under some
illusion, that the character of Sita in the epic was never meant to be
submissive in the face of injustice - to her personally and to the
female gender. One must realise that she could not have become the
icon she is by being a frail figure, forever manipulated and bent by a
patriarchal system. And, as events were to prove, her devotion to her
husband and willingness to be his partner through thick and thin could
not be interpreted as a sign of subordination. Let us look at some of
the instances where her dominance is undisputed.
At her father's home before marriage, Sita would routinely lift
Shiva's bow with her left hand while mopping the floor. It is the same
heavy bow that several strong princes failed to move even an inch from
the ground at her svayamvara. Only Ram succeeded and married her.
Thus, Sita actually set the ground rule for choosing her groom. Is
this a sign of a weak woman?
When Rama was exiled for 14 years, Sita insisted on accompanying him.
Her husband told her categorically that she should not do so as the
exile order was only for him, but she overruled him in the presence of
a number of people. Does this indicate her ‘meekness'?
Abducted by Ravana and surrounded by adversaries, she successfully
fobbed off his advances and threats made directly and through others.
The Lankan king failed to persuade her despite using all means at his
disposal. Does this not show her determination and resolve in the face
of a grim situation?
Banished from the kingdom by Ram, a then pregnant Sita later brought
up her two children as a single mother, imbibing in them the qualities
of valour and fair play. And when they in their boyhood captured her
brother-in-law Laxman, she rushed to get him released, keeping aside
her grief at having been wronged by his family. Surely, this is a sign
of a strong and very mature woman.
Finally, it was her decision to leave the world as a rebuttal to a
demand to prove she had not been ‘defiled' while away from the
kingdom. Given her wrath over the humiliation and determination, it is
unlikely that Rama would have been able to persuade her to change her
mind even if he had tried. In the end, Sita set and lived by her own
terms. It is not easy to find a better example of determined
womanhood.
In Search of Sita is, thus, in many ways a tribute to an ancient icon
by modern India.
http://voi.org/20100315386/14mar2010/general/general/sitaasanempoweredindianwoman.html
Related Articles
Celebrating the Scientific Spirit of Hinduism
http://hindu.theuniversalwisdom.org/celebrating-scientific-spirit-hinduism-0
India Buckling Under US Pressure
http://hindu.theuniversalwisdom.org/india-buckling-under-us-pressure
Who was right and why: Karna, Drona, Brishma or Arjuna?
http://hindu.theuniversalwisdom.org/who-was-right-and-why-karna-drona-brishma-or-arjuna-0
Krishna: the beloved of the masses
http://hindu.theuniversalwisdom.org/krishna-beloved-masses
Lord Rama back in centre stage in India, as issue of bridge
destruction flairs up
http://hindu.theuniversalwisdom.org/lord-rama-back-centre-stage-india-issue-bridge-destruction-flairs-0
Gallery: Sweeping up Ganesh
http://hindu.theuniversalwisdom.org/gallery-sweeping-ganesh-0
No Nationalism Makes India Weak
Bloodshed & violence at Navratri
http://hindu.theuniversalwisdom.org/no-nationalism-makes-india-weak
A bit of commonsense & tolerance please, British Airways
http://hindu.theuniversalwisdom.org/bloodshed-violence-navratri-0
Editorial: Maoist- Naxal Menace Haunts the Nation
http://hindu.theuniversalwisdom.org/editorial-maoist-naxal-menace-haunts-nation
http://hindu.theuniversalwisdom.org/open-letter-prof-m-witzel
Thackeray says no concern for women's welfare in Bill
STAFF WRITER 19:54 HRS IST
Mumbai, Mar 15 (PTI) Days after supporting the Women's Reservation
Bill in the Rajya Sabha, the Shiv Sena now says the legislation is a
ploy to garner women's votes and does not have welfare of women at
heart.
"The bill has nothing to do with women's welfare. It is a ploy to get
women's votes," Sena chief Bal Thackeray said in a statement.
The 83-year-old leader's statement was circulated here as part of his
traditional message to supporters on the occasion of 'Gudhi Padwa'
tomorrow.
"Injustice against women continues. They are suffering due to rising
prices. Is it going to end because of the Bill," he asked.
"Sena has given a clarion call that along with the bill, women should
also get protection. But that is left aside and political colours are
being given," he said.
http://www.ptinews.com/news/566024_Thackeray-says-no-concern-for-women-s-welfare-in-Bill
MNS in film cash dock
OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
Mumbai, March 15: Mumbai police have arrested 11 Maharashtra Navnirman
Sena activists after film producer Ritesh Sidhwani complained that
they had tried to extort Rs 25 lakh from his film crew.
The producer’s complaint came a month after Shah Rukh Khan refused to
apologise to Shiv Sena patriarch Bal Thackeray whose party tried to
stall the release of My Name is Khan.
Sidhwani, the producer of Dil Chahta Hai, Lakshya, Luck by Chance and
Karthik Calling Karthik, and his film unit told Bandra police that the
11 MNS activists came to the set of the film Crooked at Mehboob Studio
on Sunday afternoon and demanded to know why foreign artistes were
being employed in the film and not local talent. Deputy commissioner
K.M. Prasanna said the film unit explained to them that the “foreign
artistes were required as the sequence recreated Istanbul, Turkey”.
But the activists would not budge.
Prasanna said the MNS workers then allegedly demanded Rs 25 lakh for
not using local artistes.
Ameya Khopkar, the MNS film wing chief denied the allegation of
extortion. “A blatantly false complaint of extortion has been filed
against our boys…. Our people had gone to the set after learning that
the film was using 136 foreign nationals from Afghanistan, Iran and
Russia though they did not possess valid work permits,” he said.
The arrests happened after Sidhwani approached Mukesh Bhatt, the vice-
president of the film producers’ association, and he called up
Maharashtra chief minister Ashok Chavan.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100316/jsp/nation/story_12221472.jsp
BJP-Left House unity rolls on
RADHIKA RAMASESHAN
New Delhi, March 15: The nuclear liability bill today gave the Left
and the BJP another chance to display their vaunted “unity”, kicked
off by the price rise and helped on by the women’s reservation bill.
The two main Opposition groups, which together outnumbered the
depleted Treasury benches in the Lok Sabha today, had braced
themselves to block the bill’s introduction.
Each had opposed the nuclear deal with the US, and the BJP had the
added motive of partially answering its in-house sceptics who felt it
had “put itself out” to bail the government out over the women’s bill.
Estranged UPA allies Mulayam Singh Yadav and Lalu Prasad too joined
forces with the BJP-Left today.
A deflated government, realising what it was up against, deferred the
bill’s introduction. Denied the opportunity for a showdown, the
Opposition still flaunted the new-found unity between the strangest of
bedfellows.
“The unity is actually a direct outcome of the nuclear deal that was
opposed by the BJP and the Left. The Samajwadi began by opposing it
but later changed its stand,” said CPM general secretary Prakash
Karat. He said the Left would appeal to all MPs on Tuesday to not
support it.
The poor attendance on the Treasury benches looked out of sync with
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s exertions since yesterday to try and
bring the Opposition around on the nuclear bill.
On Sunday, Singh had phoned Sushma Swaraj, leader of the Lok Sabha
Opposition, and Sitaram Yechury, the CPM’s leader in the Rajya Sabha,
to urge them to reconsider their resistance.
Recounting the conversation, Sushma told journalists: “I said we
cannot support. He said we will have problems with other countries to
which I replied, ‘But we have problems within our own country’. The PM
asked if he should ask the national security adviser to speak to me. I
said there is no point because the NSA already spoke to Arun Jaitley
(leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha) a month ago. But our
stand remained unchanged. I was polite but firm.”
Sushma then got in touch with the CPM and CPI floor leaders, and
Yashwant Sinha was told to speak to Mulayam and Lalu Prasad to firm up
the Opposition strategy.
Last week, Mulayam and Lalu Prasad had slammed the Left and the BJP
for being “in cahoots with the Congress” over the women’s bill. Today,
by participating in the Opposition unity, they gave the government a
foretaste of the problems it might now face in Parliament.
Government sources admitted that the stand-off was a “grim reminder”
of how precariously the ruling alliance was placed in the Lower House
minus the Yadavs.
“The only short-run tactic we can follow is to avoid business that
requires voting,” a minister said. The long-term strategy, he said,
was to scout for parties that could be counted on in a crisis “even if
this entails backroom deals”.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100316/jsp/nation/story_12221471.jsp
Maya Brahmin aide missing
TAPAS CHAKRABORTY
Lucknow, March 15: Mayavati today tried to reclaim her Dalit agenda on
the Bahujan Samaj Party’s 25th anniversary by clipping the wings of
Satish Chandra Mishra, the party’s “Brahmin face” whose clout had
dismayed many of her Dalit supporters.
Mishra, architect of the Brahmin-Dalit axis that lifted Mayavati to
power in the 2007 UP polls, has been taken off the BSP’s Brahmin
Bhaichara (Brotherhood) Committee and appointed chairman of the party
legal cell.
The chief minister herself made the announcement at the party’s mega
rally here to celebrate its silver jubilee. “There is no strict
boundary of work but Mishra’s priority would henceforth be legal
work,” she said.
More eloquent than her 95-minute speech was the unusual absence of
Mishra from the dais. The lawyer who had been Mayavati’s shadow for
the past half a decade stood among party workers far from the dais,
from where Mayavati reaffirmed her commitment to the Dalit cause.
“I don’t believe the party’s core agenda is being diluted. I vow not
to ever allow the Dalit movement to weaken or the head of a Dalit to
bow in shame,” she said.
Party sources said Mayavati had been jittery over accusations that her
party, born as a movement for social transformation, had become “an
opportunistic political party” interested only in capturing power.
On the face of it, Mishra’s new post may appear logical since Mayavati
is grappling with at least half-a-dozen cases against her party and
government. But Mishra had already been supervising the cases while
discharging his other duties.
Many Dalit leaders had looked on nervously as Mishra was included in
the state cabinet in 2007 and later sent to the Rajya Sabha, all the
while retaining his status as party No. 2. But a rift appeared between
him and Mayavati after the Brahmin vote deserted her in the 2009 Lok
Sabha polls.
Mayavati had mooted banishing Mishra to the legal cell at a party
meeting in July 2009, but backed off in the face of Brahmin murmurs.
Today, she made it official.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100316/jsp/nation/story_12221469.jsp
Monday, March 15, 2010
Seedhi Baat / Aajtak, March 14, 2010
'Bal Thackeray is a big leader'
Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray's estranged daughter-in-law Smita
Thackeray says politics and family are two separate things.
Part 2 Part 3 Part 4
Posted by Prabhu Chawla at 7:35 PM
http://prabhuchawla.blogspot.com/2010/03/seedhi-baat-aajtak-march-14-2010.html
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Video/0/42/video_page.jsp?vid=88274&part=1&secid=42
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Video/0/42/video_page.jsp?vid=88274&part=2&secid=42
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Video/0/42/video_page.jsp?vid=88274&part=3&secid=42
..ab.na.jaa..
Monday, March 15, 2010
Rajdeep Sardesai's letter to Uddhav Thackeray
Rajdeep Sardesai,a well known journalist,sent a letter to Uddhav
Thackeray,heir of the Shiv Sena, on the whole "Marathi manoos" issue.
Wiki : Rajdeep Sardesai
Wiki : Uddhav Thackeray
It makes for a very interesting read,seeing the reaction of a renowned
member of the Press addressing a political leader with much force.
Dear Udhavjee,
At the very outset, my compliments for the manner in which you've
literally 'stolen' the headlines from your cousin Raj in the last
fortnight. After the Assembly election defeat last October, there were
many who had written you off as a weak, namby-pamby politician, who
would be better off doing photography. But now, it seems that the
'fire' which burns inside Bal Thackeray is alive in the son too. After
years of struggling to establish yourself, you have finally discovered
the mantra for success as a Shiv Sena leader: find an 'enemy',
threaten and intimidate them, commit the odd violent act, and,
eureka!, you are anointed the true heir to the original 'T' company
supremo.
Your cousin has chosen to bash faceless taxi drivers and students from
North India, soft targets who are totally unprotected. You've been
much braver. You've actually chosen to target national icons: Sachin
Tendulkar, Mukesh Ambani, Shah Rukh Khan, powerful figures who most
Indians venerate. Shah Rukh is no surprise since the Sena has always
been uncomfortable with the Indian Muslim identity. Forty years ago,
your father had questioned Dilip Kumar's patriotism for accepting an
award from the Pakistani government. You've called Shah Rukh a traitor
for wishing to choose Pakistani cricketers in the IPL. That your
father invited Javed Miandad, the former Pakistani captain and a close
relation of Dawood Ibrahim, to your house is a matter of record that
we shall not go into today.
I am a little surprised that you chose to question Ambani and
Tendulkar though. The Sena has always enjoyed an excellent
relationship with corporate India. Why then criticise India's biggest
businessman for suggesting that Mumbai belongs to all? After all, no
one can deny that Mumbai's entrepreneurial energy has been driven by
communities from across India. The diatribe against Sachin is even
more strange. He is, alongwith Lata Mangeshkar, Maharashtra's most
admired and recognised face. Surely, you will agree that Sachin
symbolizes Maharashtrian pride in a manner that renaming shops and
streets in Marathi never can.
Of course, in-between some of your local thugs also attacked the IBN
Lokmat office. I must confess that initially the attack did leave me
outraged. Why would a political outfit that claims to protect
Maharashtrian culture attack a leading Marathi news channel? But on
reflection I realized that we hadn't been singled out: over the last
four decades, the Shiv Sena has targeted some of Maharashtra's finest
literary figures and journalistic institutions. That you continue to
live in a colony of artists while attacking artistic freedom remains
one of the many tragic ironies in the evolution of the Sena.
Just before the Assembly elections, you had told me in an interview
that you were determined to shake off the Shiv Sena's legacy of
violence. You spoke of the need for welfarist politics, of how you
were saddened that rural Maharashtra was being left behind. I was
impressed by the farmer rallies you had organized, by the fact that
you had documented farmer suicides in the state. I thought that Uddhav
Thackeray was serious about effecting a change in Maharashtra's
political landscape.
I was obviously mistaken. Farmer suicides still continue, the after-
effects of drought are still being faced in several districts, but the
focus is now squarely on finding high profile hate figures. You claim
to have a vision for Mumbai. Yet, on the day the Sena-controlled
city's municipal corporation's annual budget revealed an alarming
financial crisis, your party mouthpiece,Saamna, was running banner
headlines seeking an apology from Shah Rukh Khan. You asked your Shiv
Sainiks to agitate against Rahul Gandhi's visit to Mumbai, but why
have you not asked them to wage a war against the water cuts that have
made life so difficult for millions in the city?
At one level, I can understand the reasons for your frustration. The
Congress-NCP government in the state has been thoroughly incompetent:
the last decade has seen Maharashtra decline on most social and
economic parameters. Yet, the Shiv Sena has been unable to capture
power in the state. Your war with cousin Raj has proved to be self-
destructive. The Assembly election results showed that a united Sena
may have offered a real challenge to the ruling alliance. In fact, the
Sena and the MNS together garnered around 43 per cent of the popular
vote in Mumbai-Thane, almost seven per cent more than what was
obtained by the Congress-NCP combine. Yet, because your vote was
split, you won just nine of the 60 seats in the region, a result which
proved decisive in the overall state tally.
Your defeat seems to have convinced you that the only way forward is
to outdo your cousin in parochial politics. It's a strategy which has
undoubtedly made you a headline-grabber once again. Unfortunately,
television rating points don't get you votes or goodwill. There is
space in Maharashtra's politics for a regional force, but it needs to
be based on a constructive, inclusive identity.
Tragically, the Shiv Sena has never offered a serious social or
economic agenda for the future. Setting up the odd wada pav stall in
Mumbai is hardly a recipe for addressing the job crisis . Why hasn't
the Sena, for example, started training projects to make Maharashtrian
youth face upto the challenges of a competitive job market? Why
doesn't the Sena give regional culture a boost by supporting Marathi
theatre, literature or cinema? The wonderful Marathi film,
"Harishchandrachee Factory", nominated for the Oscars, has been co-
produced by Ronnie Screwvala, a Parsi, who like millions of other
'outsiders' has made Mumbai his home. Maybe, I ask for too much.
Tigers, used to bullying others for years, will never change their
stripes.
Post-script: Your charming son, Aditya, who is studying English
Literature in St Xaviers College, had sent me a collection of his
poems. I was most impressed with his writing skills. Let's hope the
next generation of the T company will finally realize that there is
more to life than rabble-rousing!
Jai Hind, Jai Maharashtra!
Posted by Malvika at 12:13 PM
http://ab-na-ja.blogspot.com/2010/03/rajdeep-sardesais-letter-to-uddhav.html
Mumbai made into dharamshala: Bal Thackeray
Mumbai, Mar 6 : Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray said Mumbai has been
made into a 'dharamshala' (free inn), thereby thrashing Maharashtra
Governor K Sankaranarayanan for saying 'anybody can live in Mumbai'.
"Saying that migrants will continue to come to Mumbai is akin to
betrayal of Maharashtra," Thackeray said in an editorial in party
mouthpiece Saamna on Saturday.
"Had Sankaranarayanan been the Governor of Karnataka, would he have
dared to say let hordes of migrants come to Bangalore?" the Sena chief
said.
"The governors who live in the sprawling Raj Bhutan by the Arabian Sea
are nothing but Congress pensioners. Raj Bhutan has lost touch with
people's sentiments, that's why you say such things."
Balasaheb further recommended permit system to stop 'migrant influx'
in Mumbai.
"Mumbai has been made into a dharamshala. The only way to stop the
influx of migrants is to start a permit system to impose curbs on
those coming here," Thackeray said.
On Friday, Sankaranarayanan had said: "Anybody can live in Mumbai.
Only Mumbai can compete with itself. The rich, middle class and the
poor co-exist here."
--IBNS
http://www.newkerala.com/news/fullnews-65284.html
le photo of Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray at his residence in
Mumbai. PTI Photo Photograph (1)
Bal Thackeray targets Maha Guv over 'Mumbai for all' remark
STAFF WRITER 10:49 HRS IST
Mumbai, Mar 6 (PTI) After batting maestro Sachin Tendulkar and
industrialist Mukesh Ambani, Maharashtra Governor K Sankaranarayanan
is the latest to face the Shiv Sena ire for saying that Mumbai belongs
to all.
"Saying that migrants will continue to come to Mumbai is akin to
betrayal of Maharashtra," Sena chief Bal Thackeray said in an
editorial in party mouthpiece 'Saamana' here today.
The Governor had said yesterday that "anybody can live in Mumbai. Only
Mumbai can compete with itself. The rich, middle class and the poor co-
exist here".
In an informal interaction with media persons, his first since taking
over the gubernatorial post, he said though civic and infrastructure
facilities needed to be upgraded in the megapolis, migration from
other parts of the country cannot be curbed.
http://www.ptinews.com/news/550675_Bal-Thackeray-targets-Maha-Guv-over--Mumbai-for-all--remark
...and I am Sid Harth
